Two great articles about Obama’s speeches *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Feb 14 2008 at 11:57 am | Filed under: Barack Obama
Daniel Henninger and Dean Barnett have both written absolute excellent articles about Obama’s rhetorical style, both its assets and its limitations. I think you’ll find them very interesting reading, because they both point to the grip his words have on those in his audience, the fact that his speeches are remarkably lacking in substance and (from Barnett), the fact that, when he’s unanchored from his teleprompter, he’s an uninspiring speaker at best.
I also finally figured out what Obama’s speeches remind me of and, of all things, it’s an old Agatha Christie book known either as Destination Unknown or So Many Steps to Death. It is one of Christie’s sillier books. She wrote it during the Cold War and the premise is that scientists of all political stripes are vanishing and it’s suspected that they’re being enticed beyond the Iron Curtain. The heroine, Hilary, ends up being able to track them down to a huge compound in the Atlas Mountains. On her first night there, she and the assembled scientists (and wives), gather to hear the “director” give a speech:
Try to remember his words later, Hilary found herself unable to do so with any accuracy. Or perhaps it was that the words, as remembered, seemed trite and ordinary. But listening to them was a very different thing.
Hilary remembered once being told by a friend who had lived in Germany in the days before the war, how she had gone to a meeting in mere curiosity to listen “to that absurd Hitler” — and how she had found herself crying hysterically, swept away by intense emotion. She had described how wise and inspoiring every word had seemed, and how, afters, the remembered words in their actuality had seemed commonplace enough.
Something of the same kind was happening now. In spite of herself, Hilary was stirred and uplifted. The Director spoke very simply. He spoke primarily of Youth. With Youth lay the future of mankind.
“Accumulated Wealth, Prestige, Influential Families — those have been the forces of the past. But today, power lies in the hands of the young.
[snip]
There was more of it — all the same heady intoxicating stuff — but it was not the words themselves — it was the power of the orator that carried away an assembly that could have been cold and critical had it not beens swayed by that nameless emotion about which so little is known.
As it turns out, the “Director” is merely an actor, hired by the book’s actual malfeasors, to give speeches that say actually say nothing, but into which each listener can read his own beliefs. They’re sort of Rorschach speeches for the ear.
Now for the required disclaimer: I am not saying that Obama is Hitler. I am saying, however, that both his speaking style and the audience reaction to that style are typical of the connection between a demagogue and his audience. It’s not knew, it’s been around for a while, but in an age of inarticulate politicians, we’re unused to it and have no resistance.
(A little historical note: my father, who escaped Hitler’s Germany in 1935, heard Hitler speak at a public rally. And my father, who was Jewish and therefore unlikely to be swayed by Hitler’s words, noticed exactly what Hillary’s friend said: His speeches were commonplace. It was his connection with his audience that was out of the ordinary.)
UPDATE: In today’s Best of the Web, James Taranto comments on the number of stories about women fainting at Obama rallies. Reasoned appeals don’t make people faint. This is all about that weird demagogic connection, which bypasses reason entirely and goes into some scary emotional realm that shouldn’t have a place in American politics.
Email This Post To A Friend
30 Responses to “Two great articles about Obama’s speeches *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I have been thinking that Obama reminds me of Elvis. I was a young teenager when Heartbreak Hotel was first released, so I was there for the whole thing. Elvis had a visceral effect. Girls wanted to be with Elvis. Boys just wanted to be Elvis. He didn’t have to sing. All he had to do was stand there and the fainting started. His music was good, but nothing spectacular. He wasn’t a great singer or an accomplished guitarist. It was the man himself that caused the reaction, a lot like Obama. But Obama’s not an entertainer, he’s a presidential candidate. I see how the crowds respond when he speaks and it scares me. People want so desperately to be inspired that they abandon their ability to think. How he makes them feel becomes the standard by which they choose. It’s about the chills. We are in some trouble here.
Hello Bookworm,
I think you’re the first person I’ve read that has made such an observation, Book. My friends and I have been talking about this strange reaction between Obama and his audience in the weeks following his primary victories. As a sometimes student of Hitler’s Germany, there are just some eerie parallels between this Obama and his crowd phenomenon. Just watching the surface images of the women attending Nuremberg rallies and the hysterical crying there, and then superimpose it with American faces would convince you there is a similarity.
Again, I want to stress that I’m not saying Obama is Hitler. But this phenomenon surrounding Obama’s campaign and his speeches is worrisome. Americans have remarkably resilient to this kind of demagoguery and hysteria. The rest of the world has already gone there long since (case in point, the world reaction to Princess Diana’s death).
When you watch his speeches, there is so much energy and you feel a sense of inspiration wash over you. Heck Bookworm, truth be told, the first time I saw Obama speak this way to an auditorium of his supporters, I got swept away myself. It wasn’t until we turned off the TV and talked about his speech that I realized he didn’t say a darn thing that wasn’t trite, trivial, the stuff of bad B-rate movies and self-help books.
It’s as though you get swept up in the spirit of it in the moment, and then afterward, you shake yourself like waking from a dream. You try to remember what he said, but you can’t… because he hadn’t really said anything. Sure he said he’s for Education. He said he’s for the economy. And he’s for the environment. Heck, you can be “For” a whole slew of things, even contradictory things. It’s easy to be “For” something. The doing is much more difficult.
Just as worrisome are Obama’s reactions to being questioned. He sneers at everything that disagrees with him.
I remember him sneering at a Democratic debate at the question, ‘What would he do if a nuke went off in an American city?’ He sneered and flippantly replied, ‘I’d send in the ambulances.’ His “I’m all that and a box of chocolates” attitude about things (see American flag lapel pin) would have been suicide for any other candidate. But I’m sure Obama would agree that there is nothing ordinary about him and his candidacy…
This cartoon about Obama is worth it,
just click here
The link did not work, so here is the full address,
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0213extra_cd.jpg
Hi Thomas, Bookworm,
My wife and I were discussing this actual topic this morning. I was listening to a caller into a talk radio show that stated he was going to vote for Obama “even though he did not share Obama’s socialist policies”. I thought this to be very strange since he was not voting against any other candidate, he just liked the way Obama’s speeches made him feel.
The analogies to how German’s reacted to Hitler are valid in that sense. It is not a comparison of Obama to Hitler as Thomas had stated. Rather it is important to understand how they reacted to him.
I think Obama reacts in a manner that can be attributed to many on the left.
I do think that the Democratic party as a whole have been veering very close to some dangerous historical precedents wrt trying to control the media and the message. They shut down debates on Fox, Hillary threatened to pull out of MSNBC based on her perception of Shuster’s comments, they have been attacking talk radio for years with threats of reimplementing the fairness doctrine and let’s not forget the debacle known as McCain-Feingold; just to name a few.
Before Hitler came into power the German government created the Reich Broadcasting Corp. In 1932 they banned advertising and created a policy focused on government guidelines. The Minister of Interior declared, “The German radio serves the German people. That which degrades the German people is excluded from German radio.”
This is scary stuff. Today’s Democrats have taken on a “don’t question me tone”. They evade, offer up rhetoric laced with empty promises, lies and platitudes. Imagine what would happen if someone reminded Hillary Clinton about the FBI files scandal from her husband’s days in office. She would frame it as a media attack, the same way she’ll frame anyone questioning them her health care or anything else she proposes.
Yeah, I’ve gone off on a rant with my unedited stream of consciousness but I fear that many have looked past the emptiness of the Obama’s words because they are caught up in an artificially created movement rooted in identity politics.
Since the rise of Oprah, American media has driven by emotion. Just watching a morning program confirms this phenomenon, as the oh-so-sympathetic host seeks out any victim of any disaster to ask how he or she feels and then films his or her crying. That makes it hardly surprising that Oprah endorsed Obama–they’re definitely on the same wave length. And, from here in South Carolina, it seems that her endorsement was the beginning of the surge of black voters towards Obama. Prior to that all professional black politicians here were clearly for Clinton. We were still hearing questions about whether Obama was black.
Obama inspires? Ronald Reagan could inspire also, but voters did not support him on that basis. The media has fanned the fire by treating the primaries as a horse race. They ask candidates about the latest polls instead of their positions. After all, positions seem to turn into what William Safire once called a MEGO [my eyes glaze over], and the media don’t want you to change the channel.
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
Elections belong to the people. It is their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.
Abraham Lincoln
May I suggest we all lay in a supply of burn ointment for the next 4 years?
Oh, so, summarizing the meat of the last three anti-Obama posts and comments, I see that Obama gives good speeches, identifies with issues considered most often by woman,” was “out-slept” by Bill Clinton (with respect to black women,) and wants to tax the rich . Can somebody show me the bad here?
Inspired by Zhombre, I looked for a few more quotes about elections.
Do you ever get the feeling that the only reason we have elections is to find out if the polls were right? ~Robert Orben
Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other. ~Oscar Ameringer
When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I’m beginning to believe it. ~Clarence Darrow
Truth is not determined by majority vote. ~Doug Gwyn
In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant. ~Charles de Gaulle
Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they’ve told you what you think it is you want to hear. ~Alan Coren
During a campaign the air is full of speeches - and vice versa. ~Author Unknown
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. ~Winston Churchill
Democracy: The state of affairs in which you consent to having your pocket picked, and elect the best man to do it. ~Benjamin Lichtenberg
Don’t vote, it only encourages them. ~Author Unknown
Helen,
Yet again, I’ll take the bait.
I don’t think anybody said Obama gives good speeches. He merely gives speeches well. Big difference.
Outsleeping, or being outslept. Hardly a reason to pick a president.
Taxing “the rich” can only seem like a good idea to people who think jobs should come from the government, or that those who succeed in achieving the American dream should be punished for it.
It’s not bad to care about issues that are of concern to women, but how about a president of ALL the people.
Helen,
I will try to show the bad in as few words as possible.
Only four years ago, Barack Obama served only on the state level, in Illinois. He was elected to the Senate in 2004 and began running for President only a year and a half later. This gives him very limited experience on the national level. A year and a half, to me, does not qualify one for the Presidency.
Since running, he has spoken mostly in idealistic broad platitudes rather than proposing concrete policies, which makes him an blank slate, ie. we have no clue who this man is. What little proposals he puts forward are vague and sometimes contradictory. He speaks and no one really knows what he said afterward.
He sneers and belittles many things that disagree with him. And you can’t really pin down what he believes policy-wise because he deliberately avoids talking about it. You can find surrogate sites that pronounces what he believes, and even as a close follower of the news, I haven’t been able to pin down what his policies actually are.
Finally, he will be commander in chief and his stances on foreign policy can be described as ignorant at best. A mistep from a President can set the course of our nation into world war, and it hardly matters whether wanted it or not. His statement giving a blanket green light to talk to the dictators of the world undermines the prestige of the Oval Office and its influence. Perhaps it is inconceivable to some people, but such things can stampede us into catastrophe.
These are only a few of my concerns. From hearing other people talk, he’s everything to everyone and I haven’t heard him say anything concrete policy wise. Frosting is wonderful for the topping of a cake, but it’s not what the cake is mostly composed of.
Hello Bookworm,
As a side note, Peter Hitchens had a very interesting observation into modern politics. He said that nationalists and conservatives the world over are imploding or have imploded in the past, I don’t know, quarter century or so.
Are we seeing something like that happening to the United States and the Republican Party? I saw an interview with New Gingrich this morning on Foxnews, and he said that if the Republicans don’t fundamentally change and propose changes from the status quo, it could be a route and possible collapse.
What do you think about this?
Hmmm, I really don’t know what everyone else is listening to.
Obama will bring the troops home quickly from Iraq, saving an estimated 100 to 200 billion dollars.
He will repeal the Bush Tax cuts, “bringing in more money”, he says.
He will create a new health care program that will be optional and will cut costs. Any increases will be covered by the above two points.
He will then offer tax cuts to the middle class and poor, though the poor already pay little to no income tax.
He will end tax breaks to companies that take jobs overseas. I think he means he will penalize them.
He will force national investment in green technologies.
That’s just off the top of my head. I hear he’s got some detailed position papers out there, but I’m not interested. His program sounds just like Jimmy Carter’s, and we know the stagflation, unemployment, malaise, and deep incompetence that resulted from Carter. Might Obama be different from Carter? Who knows? He’s STARTING from exactly the same point, including virulent hatred of Israel and a deep multiculti crush on the Islamofascists. Just like Carter.
Still, his remarks on Scooter Libby Justice reminded me of “Tom Delay Corruption Power Politics”. I didn’t find them worthless pablum nor viciousness. Tom Delay is the man I love to hate, representing everything that destroyed the Republican Party. The Clintons are Tom Delay SQUARED, tripled, exponentially. Anyone is better for us than the Clintons.
I am impressed by the personal stories of Barack and Michelle Obama, just as I am utterly sickened by the personal stories of Bill and Hillary Clinton. I would have expected that the manner in which Barack and Michelle Obama grew up in environments that stressed personal responsibility, endeavors, and hope, would have resulted in them becoming Republicans. Instead they went far, far, far to the left.
He’ll never get my vote in November. But he’s got it in the Texas Primary March 4th, as a means of stopping the monstrous Clinton Corruption Machine.
Mike,
You’re right. He does propose all those things. I don’t think those are generally good proposals, some can even be catastrophic for the country. I’ve heard him say those things before, but I guess it gets drowned out in his hope and audacity rhetoric.
When you hear him speak, he will mention those points you listed Mike. The problem is he will take 5-10 minutes total in making those statements and spend 20-30 minutes talking about hope and audacity and that “Yes, we can” business. To me, that’s hardly a serious proposal and more like a broad abstraction, like genuflecting some vague direction at certain intervals of the day. But that’s just me.
Found this:
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
I was _amazed_ at the number of “no votes”.
Then I looked at the cost of what Obama is promising and found this:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080130134343.aspx
which directed me to _this_:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141
Boy. Talk about a chicken in every pot. We sure have come a long way from _there_!
I plan to come back after Valentine dinner and read all the comments and this may have already been posted, but someone called in to Rush Limbaugh and said the movie “Being There’ w/Peter Sellers reminded them of Obama. Someone w/an empty head who people think is a savant because of what he says has everyone bamboozled. I don’t think Obama is any dumber than anyone else in the Senate, but damnit - he’s a big liberal who thinks more and more and more of other people’s $$$ will fix everything EXCEPT Iraq/islamic terrorism and in those cases we need less and less!
Helen, Obama is a liberal Democrat and I have since ceased to be one and thus I do not agree with him on the issues, nor agree with him on his basic governing philosophy. Working as a career federal employee for many years — a “frontline” employee, and bargaining unit union member, in the trenches so to speak, dealing directly with the public in one of the more onerous jobs the federal government requires — has made me skeptical of what large government agencies can accomplish with any degree of efficiency or, for all that, with any real humanity. I hold a Hamiltonian view of a strong central government, but that government does not stay strong if it attempts to adjudicate all things, tax all things, regulate all things and provide all things to its citizens; but I digress. I also do not believe Obama has the requisite experience for the job of President of the United States. His resume as an elected official is rather thin; his executive experience is nil; and to me he seems the professorial type, like Gene McCarthy a generation ago, and I don’t think that temperament is suited to directing the executive branch of the federal government. Obama is certainly a likeable man, and articulate, and educated, and I do not doubt his sincerity or his good intentions (with which, in that old cliche, the road to hell is paved with) but I will not vote for him this time around. And probably never.
[...] [Discuss This Article with Bookworm] Share Article [...]
Earlier this evening I caught the last minute of an interview on CBS in which Michelle - Obabama’s wife - was saying ( not her exact words, going from memory ) that instead of waging wars we should build schools in the middle east and that is what her husband would work on if he got elected.
well…
Hasn’t she heard of the school that was built in Afghanistan only to be immediately burned down by the Taliban?
In fact it was rebuilt 3 times by US ( and I think Canadian soldiers ) and burned down 3 times by the Taliban !
Obama, his wife and anyone believing in these fairy tales are extremely and dangerously naive!
Appeasement and kindness does not work with medieval barbarians.
I listen to 40s music and I make 40s analogies. Your last comment, Friend, reminded me of what my parents always used to say. Keep in mind that my Dad was a German Jew who joined the RAF to fight the Nazis and my Mom was a prisoner of war in a Japanese concentration. Both were absolutely convinced that Germany and Japan went on to become successful small “d” democracies because they were burned to the ground and rebuilt. Neither of my parents thought that the totalitarian dictatorships they knew personally could simply be massaged back into democratic shape.
You have to burn the enemies of humanity up first, before anything you build will last for long.
One picture is worth a thousand words:
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0215cd.jpg
I’m glad this issue, content free rhetoric by Obama, is being aired for discussion. I have had the pleasure of seeing this before as a retired Foreign Service Officer. It is a very common phenomenon in Latin America. I had the pleasure of residing in Peru during the first incarnation of the now ideologically reformed Alan Garcia in the mid-late 1990s. He was a charismatic speaker par excellence who could go on for hours. If, however, you disengaged from the sweep of his words and focused on the content, you would always discover that there was “no there there.” The result of his populist rhetoric were a succession of disastrous economic and social policies which almost wrecked the country. These same (culturally specific) rhetorical skills, I’m sure, are leading to the unfolding disasters in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. It seems to me that the reason candidates such as Obama say little or nothing meaningful is because they have little or nothing in the way of ideas. This means that once in power he or she will govern like a kite in a strong wind. Always dangerous if you believe governance should get you somewhere, or at least prevent you from arriving at some place you don’t want to be.
There was an editorial by Jay Ambrose in today’s Orange County Register about this very topic. You can find it here.
It compares the Obama effect to that of orators like William Jennings Bryan, and ends with this:
Zhombre, Thank you for your honesty. Saying that “Obama is a liberal Democrat and I have since ceased to be one and thus I do not agree with him on the issues, nor agree with him on his basic governing philosophy.” is a long way from saying Obama doesn’t have a plan. Of course, he has a plan. You just don’t like it, so you’ll vote for someone else. That makes sense unlike some of the comments I’ve seen.
The problem is not that you can’t tell what Obama stands for. It’s pretty clear what he stands for. The problem is that if people are reacting to him on the “chills” level instead of an intellectual level, or even on a values level (which one would hope has an intellectual basis, but you never can tell), then we might as well ask Paula Abdul, Simon Cowell, and Randy Jackson to do the choosing.
I’m hoping that if Obama’s the nominee, then when it comes time for the debates with McCain (assuming) he’ll have to talk about more than hope and change. I want people to listen (when it’s not a revival meeting) to what he actually intends to do as president, and then judge the wisdom of putting a person with those intentions into the White House. I’m hoping people will reconsider, like Ira Smith (see the quote I shared in comment No. 25 above - and by the way, I love it that the comments are numbered) who read W. J. Bryan’s speech the next day and realized that he disagreed with almost all of it. (My father always told me to choose a husband carefully. “What looks good in the moonlight”, he said, “can look mighty different the next morning. You want one that holds up in the cold light of day.”) Same thing here. We need to shine a little daylight on the man.
I never said, not in my first comment or any that followed, that Obama doesn’t have a plan. I’m merely addressing the emotional frenzy he seems able to generate, and the way that appears to have replaced, for many of his supporters, any thoughtful assessment of the candidate.
The third word Obama uses frequently in his addresses is “unity”. I believe the appearance of the three in descending order are change, unity, and hope. Unity and hope are appealing concepts for the younger voter, and that is what Obama is attracting. For the Democrats he offers change from the Clintons, for those weary of vituperous arguments he offers unity, and for the young he offers the hope of all their dreams.
Yes, we must read Obama’s speeches in the cold light of the morning after, and insist all the nation do so as well.
Al
2008.02.16 Politics and National Defense Roundup…
This post will grow as the day goes on. Don’t forget to check back later. Worth reading today: “I hope he heard the ticking before he was blown up.” The Final Atrocity Rule of law: Phoenix Answering Felipe Calderon: McClintock and Tancredo speak I…
Speaking of what Obama stands for, in my travels around the internet I’ve come across several photos of Obama campaign offices decorated with posters or flags depicting Che Guevara. You’d think he’d order them taken down - or maybe not.