Three Quotes From...
Sweet Nothings
A close reading of The Speech.
--Andrew Ferguson, The Weekly Standard
When his handlers decided to schedule a speech in Berlin, they teed up comparisons with the portentous speeches that Presidents Kennedy and Reagan had delivered there.
Instead, in the heart of Europe, before 200,000 breathless admirers*, Obama pulled himself up to his full height, lifted his chin, unlimbered those eloquent hands, and said nothing at all.
"The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another."
[That] sentence is the heart of the speech and an instance of Obama's big weakness--his preference for the rhetorical flourish over a realistic account of things as they are. Most politicians share the weakness, and the preference has proved wildly attractive to Obama's supporters. But think it through: "New walls to divide us" is just a metaphor, a trope. A trope can't be the "greatest danger of all." A terrorist setting off a nuclear bomb in London--that's a danger. A revolution in Islamabad--that's a danger. A figure of speech is just a figure of speech.
Obama couldn't come to Berlin and deliver a speech full of portent, as Reagan and Kennedy did before him, and as his publicists suggested he might. For all the talk about this being our time and us being the people, Obama shows no sign of really believing we live in portentous times. This is surely part of his appeal. It's not surprising that when he came to Berlin and said nothing at all, none of his admirers seemed disappointed.
Personal Note: And this is what has bothered me for so long about Barack Obama... he never really says anything. He speaks well, and strings together a lot of artfully crafted sentences that seem to say something; he gives the appearance of having said something "portentous," but in the end what has he really said? Nothing. And millions are swayed by the empty grandiosity of his finely crafted rhetoric.
The fact that so many are swooning for this political caricature really points to a deficiency in this present world's ability to separate cold hard logic and analysis from sweeping passionate rhetoric. It's as though the world has forgotten how to think. Ferguson describes it this way:
Anyone who wants to understand Barack Obama would do well to stay away from the radio and the TV. Obama is a theatrical presence. That's what it means to be "charismatic": To an unnerving degree his appeal relies on sight and sound rather than sense. Better, in my opinion, to stick to the printed word. On paper (or the computer screen) his words can be thought about and chewed over. You can understand him at your own pace, undistracted by that rich baritone, the regal bearing, the excellent drape of his Burberry suits.
What we see on television is a puppet show. What we hear on the radio is a carefully crafted sales pitch. But the printed word cannot be anything other than what it is.
----
* A number now believed to be hugely over-blown.
3 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is refreshing to have a candidate who can speak for 30 minutes without inserting his foot in his mouth. Obama gave a speech that criticized neither Europe or America. That is a tough line to walk. To try to draw Europeans toward the topics Americans see as important, without laying any divisive lines.
No recent presidential candidate has run on a platform of policies. They run on the emotive connection they create to the voters. McCain is running as a senior experienced Washington politician. Obama as a fresh voice. When you read their policy position papers both candidates are standard Republican and Democrat.
That makes Obama a liar and a fraud. What's fresh about standard, failed Democratic policies?
There's nothing refreshing about a candidate who takes 30 minutes to say nothing. It's rather tedious, in fact. It's kinda like those dancers who utilize streamers tied to sticks. It looks pretty as they twirl them around, but it's just streamers on sticks. Obama's speeches are just empty words.