The fallacy of verbal facility
Bookworm on Dec 07 2008 at 3:13 pm | Filed under: Media matters
I know I’ve posted before about a very common error on the Left: The belief that, if someone speak fluidly and articulately, his ideas must be as good as his presentation. The examples of famous evil demagogues, with the most famous being Hitler, fail to deter Progressives from this belief. The same people are equally committed to the corollary idea, which is that a hesitant speaker, such as George Bush or Moses, must have bad ideas.
Let me say this very clearly (given my wonderful verbal skills): Oral fluency has nothing to do with the quality of ones ideas. Both Hitler and Churchill were gifted speakers. One was a fount of evil thought; the other a man deeply committed to Western freedoms.
I mention this because, once again, the New York Times has given space to an idiot, this time a man who is outraged that Joe the Plumber got a book deal, when others who handle the English language more elegantly (at least, in the opinion of this particular Times‘ guest writer) did not. Certainly, if you have good ideas, it’s easier to convey them if you’ve mastered your audience’s language. But for this writer to assume that those who have mastered the language have good ideas, while someone who is not verbally gifted has only bad ones, is the kind of typical failed logic that characterizes modern education and that drags our world down on a daily basis.
Related posts:
- Tony Snow has a verbal facility I envy
- Palin’s principled move in the right direction
- “Words, words, words, I’m so sick of words”
Email This Post To A Friend
12 Responses to “The fallacy of verbal facility”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I remember reading an essay by a linguist years ago in which he discussed how listeners whose native language is Arabic or Italian are so entranced by the beauty of their languages that it is HOW an orator speaks rather than WHAT he says that is most important.
I finally understood that when I listened to Jessie Jackson deliver a speech to the Demo convention in 1984 — I think it was his “Keep Hope Alive” speech. The rational part of me was less than impressed by the content and by Jackson’s use of a set of oratorical conventions that, through endless honing, were proven to make leftists puddle up.
But my emotional side loved the way he spoke. His timing and cadences, and his appeals to hope and our better natures were very appealing. I realized how a good speaker can seduce with technique.
Maybe some of our preoccupation with being smooth and glib comes from the movies. James Bond and Stanley Kowalski never stuttered nor hesitated (except artfully so), and it was no coincidence that Jack Kennedy’s speaking skills brought to mind a movie star’s presence. Never mind that JFK was a self-absorbed priapist with remarkably limited skills and vision.
Now we have Obama, who in a age of declining expectations dazzles in comparison to the wooden George Bush. But if you listen closely, you hear a man with a narrow range and a smallish bag of tricks. The coolness is great, but if there is only coolness, it will wear on leftists, who constantly need to be entertained.
His hesitations may masquerade as thoughtfulness at first, but eventually listeners will detect the lack of intellectual depth or substance. You can only recite from memory for so long before life hands you an entirely new situation that your slogans and shibboleths can’t address.
This is just part and parcel of the same thing, Book. After all, how did aristocrats separate the real blue bloods from the wannabes that have gotten aristocratic titles through trading and *Gasp* work?
They did so based upon their accent, their breeding, where they were educated from, and so forth. All of these provide a useful social barrier to separate the real blue bloods from the wannabe “new rich”.
Certainly, if you have good ideas, it’s easier to convey them if you’ve mastered your audience’s language. But for this writer to assume that those who have mastered the language have good ideas, while someone who is not verbally gifted has only bad ones, is the kind of typical failed logic that characterizes modern education and that drags our world down on a daily basis.
They are just doing the same thing they have always done, Book, no surprise there.
And btw, Book, these are the same people who want “bilingualism” in our schools. Just another way to separate the “real” people from the commoners. How can Americans tell the difference from the serfs working in our fields to real Americans? Why, by whether they speak English well or not, and bilingualism makes it much harder for foreigners to speak English well (Not as much focus or time spent).
This is just about as silly as the British aristocrats’ habit of gauging people’s intellects by their accents.
And for exactly the same reasons, Danny. The Brits have a very fine class distinction. The New Democrat aristocrats can be no less.
This is a little OT, but there is a language link: check out a 12/7 post at NRO’s Media Blog. The topic is the Oxford Junior Dictionary. Book, you may want to have someone tie your hands first to prevent you from pulling out your hair. It’s that outrageous.
It reminds me of one of the life lessons that I learned while still at university – the greater the vocabulary and the more complicated the erudition, the less likely that that the good professor knew his subject.
Ymarsakar, that is a really good insight. I hadn’t thought before of the other, hidden, motives behind withholding the teaching of proper English to Mexican and Hispanic kids. Not only do the teachers and administrators have a permanent job lamenting the racism of the larger society, they assure that the elites never have to contend with potential rivals.
Not to worry about not getting a book deal! Mark Pinsky at The New Republic is suggesting Obama resurrect the Federal Writers Project to give out of work journalists something to do.
>>James Bond and Stanley Kowalski never stuttered nor hesitated (except artfully so)>>
And John Wayne and Jimmie Stewart are no longer considered heroes worth noticing…
I think there’s something to ponder here.
Of course, another little something is that Bond always had gadgets to get him out of jams. (I don’t know Kowalski.) Cowboy heroes didn’t have much other than the cavalry.
Another comparison is their treatment of women. Bond has “equal” women. He uses them, abuses them and then ditches them to move on to the next. The cowboy heroes practically worshipped women – odd, considering how “unequal” women were in those times.
It’s more than just the verbal facility, I think.
That last point — about the way in which old time (and now passe) heroes venerated women while current heroes treat them like dirt — is an intriguing one, suek.
See the smart-talk trap and when only the glib win, we all lose.
Danny (#6)
>> It reminds me of one of the life lessons that I learned while still at university – the greater the vocabulary and the more complicated the erudition, the less likely that that the good professor knew his subject. >>
Proceeding from the concrete to the abstract is a time-honored, classic technique, because it works – kind of like phonics instead of whole-word.
Also, if Jesus’ parables were all dense, deep Kantian ruminations about the Alpha and the Omega, and if he’d spent most of his time discussing the triune nature of God, he’d have been far less effective.