Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
ON THE SUBJECT OF HE WHO GIVETH GREAT SPEECHES
I only have a few minutes to write this up, and I still have not seen the video version of Barack Obama’s speech Tuesday in Philly in full, and because of travels didn’t have a chance until yesterday to read it in full. But the thing that most strikes me about Obama’s speech, once all campaign and electoral dynamics are set aside, is the deep, almost sad irony of the criticism, most notably but not exclusively coming from Hillary Clinton, that Obama is little more than a guy who gives a good speech.
Why is this such a sad, and sometimes tragic irony? Because not only are speeches like Tuesday’s necessary, but the establishmentarian powers in the country—and by that I don’t intend a veiled dig against Clinton, who herself often rails quite nobly against such powers—are more than happy to sit and applaud politely, maybe even fall over each other like puppies trying to climb out of a box to praise great speeches about serious, troubling issues like Tuesday’s undoubtedly was...so long, of course, is that all they need suffer, or do, is that: Listen to speeches. This is the level of tolerance, I dare say, for orators who some might consider forerunners in some ways (racial or otherwise) to Obama, be they Jesse Jackson or Paul Wellstone. “Great little speech, fella, thanks for that,” comes the reply. “Now pack up and please go back into your little cubby hole, if you don’t mind.”
Is Obama capable only of giving a good--even great--speech? Is he a rhetor nonpareil, but ultimately not much more than a Symbol-in-Chief? Maybe, in the end, that will prove true--though I think he has already proved otherwise, that his skillset is far deeper, his vision much wider. Still, what most bothers me most about this week is not that good speechmaking may be the most he’s capable of, but that suffering politely through a powerful, necessary and overdue speech is so often the most the powers-that-be in America are capable of enduring. And in the absence of action—indeed, as a distractingly lovely and relatively painless substitute for real action—what it says about American political leadership and its fascination with great speeches, no less its simultaneous intransigence toward doing anything about moving words to action is, I submit, a far greater indictment of Obama’s “he giveth good speech” critics than of him.
--Tom Schaller
COMMENTS (10)
But that's Obama's fault, not the media's. He never makes solutions or answers the focus of any speech, and didn't do so with this one either. Moving on and coming together are not solutions, and the country already knows about everything he spoke of--what we don't know about is Obama.
Fixing America's problems doesn't require racial harmony or unity, etc--it requires strong leadership and courage and the willingness to fight tooth and nail for what's right and needed.
Posted by: amberglow | March 20, 2008 9:48 AM
Also, it's not the media's job to take any action on issues beyond investigating, reporting, factchecking, and verifying truth and lies--and they don't even do that much.
The media failed in investigating and vetting Obama and in challenging him, and even now were all too willing to allow Obama to change the subject and give them positive video to replace the truly poisonous Wright video.
Posted by: amberglow | March 20, 2008 9:53 AM
I guess it's really impossible to get the point across that Obama is not running to recite laundry lists of 'solutions'that will be bargained down to nearly nothing anyway. He is not running as a director of operations, like the usual [dull and ultimately less-than-successful] Democrats, as someone who says 'don't worry- elect me and I'll fend off the barbarians and get a few programs of some kind pushed through, so you can just keep on watching reality shows after the inauguration.' IOW, he's not running to enable the laziness and ignorance that has come to define American civic life.
What he's doing is challenging Americans to actually take control of-- and ultimately, responsibility for-- their own damned government, with the understanding that he will try to do as much as the voters will both support and allow. This is a wonderful idea to those of us who happen to believe in what the Founders proposed and Lincoln crystallized as 'of the people, by the people, and for the people,' but if it's too scary & daunting a concept for even a large plurality of supposedly politically-engaged Democrats, then I assume that Obama will fail, we'll continue on with the generally shitty and corrupt government we will have proven to deserve, and the country will continue to decline as the populace grows ever lazier and dumber.
Posted by: latts | March 20, 2008 10:21 AM
Yesterday Obama delivered a brilliant speech laying out a detailed intelligent plan for dealing with terrorism. He took Al Quaeda, the Iraq war, nuclear arms treaties, and the Peace Corp and put it all together in a coherent strategy. And NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!! How can you criticize for not having detailed policies when you won't report them!!! Please, everyone, go to Obama's website and just read the whole thing for yourself.
Posted by: Elisabeth | March 20, 2008 11:00 AM
I find this criticism baffling from someone married to Bill Clinton. A big part of presidentin' is making speeches. Michael Waldman, Bill Clinton's speechwriter, writes that his shop wrote one or two speeches a day; Ted Sorenson, Kennedy's speechwriter, wrote one or two a week. And Clinton showed what a speech could do. His speech after the Oklahoma City bombing not only saved his presidency from irrelevance; it calmed a nation. By contrast, George Bush blew opportunities to exert leadership, after September 11 and Katrina. So keep speaking, Senator Obama.
Posted by: Bob | March 20, 2008 12:44 PM
Wait. The fact that Obama gives great speech and nothing happens as a result of it is a rebuke to the people who criticize him for giving great speeches but not doing anything? The logic totally escapes me...
Posted by: gyrfalcon | March 20, 2008 12:52 PM
"What he's doing is challenging Americans to actually take control of-- and ultimately, responsibility for-- their own damned government, with the understanding that he will try to do as much as the voters will both support and allow."
IOW-- There they go. I'm their leader. I must follow them.
So... this means that if the great American voters decide to take control of their government and have it round up and deport all illegal immigrants or reinstitute prayer in public schools and the like, Obama will "try to do" those things?
Please.
This is such a lovely and hopeful sentiment for a prayer group or something, but it offers nothing to people in this country suffering real problems right now. And you can't understand why working class folks can't get excited about the prospect of a President Obama?
Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2008 12:58 PM
this means that if the great American voters decide to take control of their government and have it round up and deport all illegal immigrants or reinstitute prayer in public schools and the like, Obama will "try to do" those things?
Stupid argument, since obviously an electorate that wants such things would never elect Obama, or any Democrat.
it offers nothing to people in this country suffering real problems right now
Passive, defeated citizens aren't exactly a recipe for long-term electoral success. The GOP knows this, of course, although Dems can't seem to figure out why they lose so much. Then again, a party comprised mostly of distracted-at-best voters and middle-management candidates probably deserves to lose.
Posted by: latts | March 20, 2008 3:12 PM
Stupid argument, since obviously an electorate that wants such things would never elect Obama, or any Democrat.
I'm not so sure this is true. One of my problems with Obama is that he is being vague enough to attract lots of admirers with very different ideas about what he will actually do. Look at all the conservative writers and pundits who have been saying glowing things. A lot of his support is coming from Republicans. I wonder how they will all respond when the surprise package actually gets opened.
Posted by: denise | March 20, 2008 4:28 PM
I thought Obama's speech was the most brilliant political side-step I've seen in recent campaigning. Not that I find the ideas he brought forth any less prominent or relevant. It was, in fact, a great speech. But I can't shake the fact that it came in light of heavy scrutiny and falling poll numbers. And because of this, I felt it was more of a deflection. Which is sad because as a minority myself, I would've liked to see such ideas delivered from the start - and not just when the candidate was in the hot seat.
Posted by: MM | March 22, 2008 4:05 PM