« At Least They Could have gotten the Weather Report Right | amike's Blog | The Parsing of the President I: »
Are We Losing the Ability to Understand Intelligence and Subtlety in Our Leaders?
This human animal--prescient, sagacious, complex, acute, full of memory, reason and counsel, which we call man...***In fact, reason, which alone gives us so many advantages over beasts, by means of which we conjecture, argue, refute, discourse, and accomplish and conclude our designs, is assuredly common to all men; for the faculty of acquiring knowledge is similar in all human minds, though the knowledge itself may be endlessly diversified. By the same senses we all perceive the same objects, and that which strikes the sensibilities of the few, cannot be indifferent to those of the many. Those first rude elements of intelligence which, as I before observed, are the earliest developments of thought, are similarly exhibited by all men; and that faculty of speech which is the soul's interpreter, agrees in the ideas it conveys, though it may differ in the syllables that express them. And therefore there exists not a man in any nation, who, adopting his true nature for his true guide, may not improve in virtue.
Cicero, On the Laws
How encouraging Mr. Cicero is. Some days I cling to what he asserts as a drowning man might cling to a lifeline. To temper my enthusiasm for his faith in the universality of reason and what it can accomplish I have to remind myself that just because we can doesn't mean that we will, or even that we want to practice what Cicero preaches. Yesterday morning, hearing one inane commentary after another, I finally couldn't stand it any more. I offed the radio before it offed itself. I expected very little, and wasn't disappointed. The best I heard over the last two days was on Public Radio International's The World, and even there, I rather cringed when Lisa Mullins asked two Professors of Islamic Studies something to the effect of whether Barack Obama was trying to change America's relationship with Islam or change Islam itself. (Strange, huh?) (They responded he wasn't in the remaking Islam business).
Anyhow, wandering around the links at The World I found myself over at the BBC website, and the most sensible presentation of this speech plus analysis I've yet found: sensible not only in what was written, but in how the page was designed. The video of the speech is present in full. The text of the speech is present in full. Extensive analysis by Paul Reynolds, BBC world affairs correspondent was presented as well, but in a way I've never seen before. Section by section the speech unfolded, but the analysis was hidden in drop-down boxes. One could read the analysis or not read it, or best, read the entire speech first, and then return section by section, re-read what Obama said, then read what Reynolds thought, and then reason whether or not Reynold's analysis agreed with one's own. Remarkable. So Beeb. So American-not.
I have done two of the steps... I'm still in the process of making my own analysis. I'm thinking I want to write something about this, but not about just this, but Obama's rhetorical style in general. I'm not entirely in tune with George Lakoff's framing linguistics, strict fathers v. forgiving mothers and all that. But if we're going to make an impact on Obama's reasoning methinks we have to understand how he does reason, and looking carefully at the structure of his speeches can help us give him food for thought. If I want to know how to convince someone else, I can do much worse than analyze how he or she tries to convince others.
In the meantime, just so the title of this entry isn't entirely misleading, let me state my humble opinion that it has been a very long time since we've had a President as subtle and intelligent as Obama is. Bush was neither. President Clinton was certainly intelligent-but perhaps he tried clever as a substitute for subtle. Reagan learned how to sell stuff by selling GE refrigerators...enough said. Carter? Intelligent, certainly the best ex-President of my lifetime, and perhaps of any since Jefferson, but cursed with a pondering speech which the bozos in the New York smart set found too boring to pay attention to. (If you're a New Yorker and have read this far, you're definitely not a bozo). The thesis I'm developing is that we've forgotten how to take intelligent, serious, people seriously. In fact, we now use "serious" as an epithet.
It think it refreshing to have a man of letters in the White House. I also think it is hard work, because we can't scan Obama the way we scan a beach book. Some on my side of the political fence don't even scan him that well-rather more like they might scan The National Enquirer while waiting at the checkout counter at Pigley-Wigley. He deserves better of us than that. So I'm going to give my best shot at analyzing the relationship between Obama's personal history, intelligence, and rhetorical style. I'd love to see a couple of others take a similar stab at this. We can organize a conference, maybe.
Advertisement
Let's not forget that the President has a speech writer and a large staff who shape both his outputs and inputs. So to "scan" Obama as a public figure you probably need to also look at not just the top of the pyramid. Our impact on him, reasoning or not, will largely occur through the channels his Presidency favors.
I suggest taking him at his word, for starters. Apply pressure coherently.
I would quibble with Cicero, but not here.
Maybe we need to work on the inane commentary aspect, as that probably reflects to some extent the inanity-acceptance-quotients of large sections of the public. "If they will eat it, someone will profit off of feeding them."
June 6, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not heard anyone claim to be Obama's speechwriter in the sense that Ted Sorenson was the speechwriter for John F. Kennedy. But maybe I missed something. Who writes his speeches? Do you know?
If one reads Obama's books and compares them to his speeches, one would have to compliment the speechwriters for getting inside his brain and writing as he writes. Obama's books were not ghostwritten.
June 6, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about Audacity of Hope, that felt quite different from Dreams.
"Jan 25, 2009 ... Sorry, ladies: We're told Jon Favreau, Barack Obama's 27-year-old single speechwriter, now has a girlfriend. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Favreau_(speechwriter)
You mentioned Sorenson: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1894410_1893209_1893458,00.html
June 6, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
amike understands Obama!
We don't!
amike appreciates Obama's subtlety!
We are "losing the ability to understand" our Dear Leader!
But is this the same subtle amike who chose the witch-hunter John Winthrop as an example of empathy?
And is this the same Obama who lies every time he opens his mouth?
Was it subtle to promise to renegotiate NAFTA...
(which Obama promised to support again and again and again in Ohio and Illinois and Michigan)
Or was it just a lie?
Was it subtle to back off the Employee Free Choice Act...
(which Obama promised to support again and again and again in Ohio and Illinois and Michigan)
Or was it just a lie?
Was it subtle to promise to filibuster telecom immunity?
(which Obama promised to filibuster "standing shoulder to shoulder" with Russ Feingold in Wisconsin)
Or was it just a lie?
But even though the rest of us may be "losing the ability to understand" our Dear Leader...
We can still understand the difference between subtlety and lies...
And that's more than I can say for amike or his Messiah, the compulsive liar Barack Obama.
June 7, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did someone forget to close the compost bin??
June 7, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who would want to recycle this veggie?
June 7, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Winthrop hunted no witches. He died in 1648. The witchcraft hysteria of 1693 was a product of third generation Puritanism, not first generation. Some relate it to a collapse of world view concordant with the loss of the Massachusetts Charter in 1676 and the installation of a detested royal governor. But you really don't care about any of this, do you.
I don't proclaim to understand Obama. "We" includes me. I assert it worthwhile to try to understand him, but that may be too subtle for you.
Other than that, I stand by what I wrote.
June 7, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not heard anyone claim to be Obama's speechwriter in the sense that Ted Sorenson was the speechwriter for John F. Kennedy
Really? I read a lot about him during the primary, and I think he's an important part of Obama's presentation. And Sorenson is indirectly involved as one of Favreau's hires sat at Sorenson's feet taking down his memoirs.
As the wikipedia entry that eds links to states, Favreau was hired by Obama the moment he became a Senator and, as implied, he and his team have had a lot to do with all of his major speeches since then.
For one example, I recall, from the Jan. 2, 2008 New York Times:
I remember being impressed by the fact that Favreau revised the NH speech from victory to concession in 3 hours. Certainly Obama would not have much time for input on that one.
Also, if one read Ryan Lizza's New Yorker piece about Obama's Chicago days,, he did not have the same skills when he started out in politics, he had to learn them after losing his first try at election. For delivery, he studied.
I have the impression from my reading over time that he probably relies heavily on his speechwriting team to turn his thoughts from the professorial and written word, which is his natural bent, to the oratorial/inspirational. Contrast how he speaks in interviews or press conferences--very haltingly, if thoughtful, searching for the correct words, and note how much he uses the teleprompter when giving a speech. He's not a natural orator, it's learned, and created by teamwork.
Looking back on what I have read and what I have seen since then, I see the Favreau hire being a key part of Obama's ambitious plan to become presidential material, including the JFK, RFK, MLK themes, and I think he is probably key to helping create the image that many people think of as "Barack Obama."
While I certainly agree that Obama is intelligent and subtle, I don't see a natural speechwriter or speech giver, not someone who can turn a catchy inspirational phrase, nor even relate as well one on one to individuals as many other politicians can. After all, his books aren't like that, either. Actually, I suspect he may be a little on the weak side with the thinking on the feet skills as far as interaction with individuals are involved...I will not be surprised if we see more faux pas like the "Special Olympics" comment on the Jay Leno show from time to time. From what we've seen in foreign visits, I have been pleasantly surprised with his schmoozing skills, beyond expectations. But at the same time one gets this sense that he sometimes pushes it too far, and doesn't read people right at first on what might be ok and what might not.
June 7, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he also learned from Rev. Wright, and that shows in his verbal delivery.
But the point was not about whether Obama can speechify, but about access to Obama.
June 7, 2009 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Turns out head speechwriter Favreau is treated as quite important, paid the same as the top people on his staff, including the same as Chief of Staff Emanuel. And note speechwriting seems to be a department with staff of its own, Favreau's title is "Director of Speechwriting," suggesting that far more is spent on speechwriting help.
July 3, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I have to work to comply with your request. But it might be more than worthwhile. Let us see what I can do by tomorrow.
But I am biased. I like being biased actually. I have a natural bent. Makes it easier to decide the direction where I should be headed.
"How encouraging Mr. Cicero is. Some days I cling to what he asserts as a drowning man might cling to a lifeline. To temper my enthusiasm for his faith in the universality of reason and what it can accomplish I have to remind myself that just because we can doesn't mean that we will, or even that we want to practice what Cicero preaches."
It is just you and me so far with this KICKERO THINGY. Ha!!
So I must award you the Dayly Blog Award for this here TPMCafe site given to all of you professor from all of me--the pj man.
I love Cicero, I love old professors, I love Obama. But that is the fun of making awards. hahahahaha
June 6, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who needs subtle?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
"-- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want--which, translated into universal terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants--everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world."
June 6, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where we disagree, Bluebell, is that I consider Jefferson's and Roosevelt's words incredibly subtle and chosen with absolute care. Jefferson takes John Locke and modifies his formula so gently that many, if not most of his original readers probably didn't catch it. Those who did were much impressed. Yet how different is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from "life, liberty and property". How subtle to include "among these" -- which leaves the list open ended. How subtle to call these truths "self-evident," obviating the need to offer proof. And how subtle to include "pursuit" in the phrase. What seems common to us because it has endured for two and a quarter centuries was novel in the extreme.
Ditto Roosevelt. We say of course four freedoms. We've had that address to ponder for two generations now. But why four, and why those four? Three is the magic western number and has been since Aristotle. Faith, Hope, and Charity--Executive, Administrative, Judicial--or, for that matter "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".
June 6, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Obama gives great speeches. But unless he can walk the walk, all that talk doesn't mean diddly. Subtle is fine as long it is matched with a clarity that motivates action.
June 7, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, amike, for a thoughtful and interesting post. I agree with you, and I am a little surprised at those who say that Obama's speechifying prowess is negated because he has speech-writers!!!!
As hard as it is to believe, considering the halting drivel that came out of his mouth, George Bush has speech-writers too.
Does anyone believe that Obama just tells a few flunkies: "Hey make me a speech that I can deliver at Cairo University, and make it a good one?"
Yes, they are polished, but they are also nuanced, and they are very, very consistent. His speeches go beyond rhetoric as I haven't heard in -- well, I've never heard it before. He is behind each one of them, I have no doubt.
But I'll also say this -- Dubya, and all the rest, could recite his speeches and they wouldn't sound the same -- In Dubya's case it would be because he wouldn't understand what he was saying, and it would take twice as long since he would have to pause for his pre-recorded voice to tell him the next phrase.
If anyone thinks Obama doesn't believe what he is saying, then I personally think they just aren't listening. And I think the latter is true of the right-wing noise machine that goes into attack-mode one minute after he (and the thundering applause) stops.
June 6, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am a little surprised at those who say that Obama's speechifying prowess is negated because he has speech-writers"
If that's not just your overactive imagination, if it pertains to the first comment in this thread, you really need to work on your manners or your reading comprehension. Or both.
June 6, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
eds, no need for the paranoia -- believe it or not, every comment is not about you. The favorite far-right complaint (well, second fav, right after "How dare he criticize America!) is this one: "Oh, he can read a Telepromp Ter, so what?" (the implication being that he is just a robot, reading what has been written for him.
Looking back at your comment, my take on what you wrote is that he chooses the people who pen his words, and so although he is at the top, he is standing on the shoulders of like-minded people. If my comment was meant to refute what you had said, I would have posted it as a reply as I am doing now.
June 7, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
His reasoning is subtle, and compelling. He is a chess player.
Nice, amike.
June 6, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
amike,
Did read the speech and then the analysis - the latter was pretty good for condensed but did not (most likely couldn't) deliver the nuance and whole message I obtained from the speech when read in entirety.
It is said by Obama and those closest to him that he has been working on this speech for literally months. He asked for critiques and suggested edits, but the speech was truly his in every sense of the delivery.
Thanks much for this blog, I have e mailed links to bbc site and others here to some. Very informative and interesting.
My personal opinion is it was brilliant and only intended to be the beginning. He opens the door and invites/welcomes all who choose to enter and whose goal is to share in a positive manner.
He's now tipped his hat and introduced himself. He's holding his hand out, let's see who reaches out to shake it.
June 6, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amike, always a fan! Obama does make one want to hear him speak, because you get a sense they are his words, which reflect his intentions, and not just phrases that sound good. Not all speeches though are game-changers. I don't think this ME speech is one. I'd rather look closely at his actions - standing firm on settlements, etc. So far encouraging moves, but here what matters most is the ability to hold a political coalition together in the face of AIPAC and co...
June 7, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are three aspects to what you term "subtlety" (and which is often called "nuance" by others), each with a slightly different scope:
Policy: considering complex issues, the intractable "shades of grey" rather than simple dualistic solutions.
Politics: manipulation of opinion by carefully constructed language, gradual redefinition of concepts, repetition etc.; or similar actions to obfuscate one's real position.
Literary: intentionally or unintentionally including multiple layers of meaning, "inside" references, analogies.
There is a very strong argument to be made that the latter two have no place in political speech in an ideal world, and should be reserved for different contexts.
It seems that you are arguing in favour of the last aspect? (Please do feel free to offer an alternative breakdown if this does not seem to fit your mental model.)
June 7, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the interesting comment. I'm going to think long and hard about it. I'm going to ask permission to take the second reference and split it in two or more parts. Chalk that up to an obsessive compulsive nature on my part. I'm looking for a less value laden word than "manipulate" for one thing. Does "shape" work any better? I cannot think of a reason for discourse other than to shape the opinion of someone else, and concurrently taking the risk of allowing the other person a chance to shape yours. I think this lies at the center of the Cicero quotation with which I began. John Milton said that arguing was the sound of learning in making. I rather like that. He also argued that there are no losers in this kind of dialogue. If I exchange an inferior idea for a better one, even if it isn't my own, I come out ahead.
I think we both agree that violating language in the sense of deliberately distorting meaning is without the pale. I'd go so far as to say it is a crime against humanity. Orwell thought so. I haven't forgiven the changing of the Department of War into the Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security is a similar perversion of language to my way of thinking, not to mention police action, collateral damage and harsh interrogation methods. One of the things which gives me some hope is that numbers of people are denouncing these euphemisms to a greater degree than was the case in the recent past.
Anyhow, thanks for giving me something to chew over.
June 7, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the advantages of being graced with subtlety is how easily you can zip past republican eejits without their realizing they have become mere supernumeraries in the grand scheme of things.
June 7, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent and important blog, amike. I fault the media, they seem afraid to praise Obama even though they know how worthy he is. They are like deer in the headlights.
Let me use a sports analogy, this ballplayer, Obama in the 5th week of the season is batting .450 has hit 36 homeruns, 18 triples, and 26 doubles, his team has an almost perfect record, and he barely gets mentioned in the press coverage. Cause that's how well he's doing.
I just call them as I sees them...
June 7, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loved the Cicero quote; I hadn't read it before. You mentioned the BBC -- it's a bit of a lifeline for me, actually. When I get caught up in my own, sometimes petty, views on things, the BBC can help recenter me a little.
It took me a while to realize how thoroughly pervasive is the dearth of common sense perspective offered in the news these days. I had to shake myself a little to get there -- in truth, Obama actually inspired me to take a walk outside my own perspective every now and then. Awakened, I now find stunning incongruity everywhere I look. Living permanently abroad, I often peruse various news stories about the same subject told from utterly disparate perspectives. I'm continually stunned at competing statements about what should be empirically provable fact. Yet there it is, two or more completely different takes on the same event.
June 12, 2009 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink