Slog Comments
Re: Re: Obama's Speech and Wanting More
2
First: Of course a bunch of writers are going to be armchair quarterbacks over one of the most important speeches of our lifetime. Of course they will find flaws in it and imagine how it could have been done better. If Obama gave speeches to impress them, there wouldn't be a million people standing there watching. Using broad strokes is part of reaching a broad audience.
Second, I think that you're right about "the Obama theory," and it brings to mind certain aspects of both Roosevelt and Kennedy's rhetoric. The key to taking the high road is that people's emotions have to be genuinely stirred, to the point where they are ready to believe that their personal involvement will make a difference and that they won't be punished for doing the right thing. As the last eight years have shown, when people can see the game is rigged all the way to the top, corruption becomes the rule of the day all the way to the bottom.
So I think we'll be seeing a lot more lofty rhetoric, because it's the key element to generating the political will to make substantive changes. As much of a cynic as I am, I've noticed that cynicism is an extremely uninspiring banner to march under.
Second, I think that you're right about "the Obama theory," and it brings to mind certain aspects of both Roosevelt and Kennedy's rhetoric. The key to taking the high road is that people's emotions have to be genuinely stirred, to the point where they are ready to believe that their personal involvement will make a difference and that they won't be punished for doing the right thing. As the last eight years have shown, when people can see the game is rigged all the way to the top, corruption becomes the rule of the day all the way to the bottom.
So I think we'll be seeing a lot more lofty rhetoric, because it's the key element to generating the political will to make substantive changes. As much of a cynic as I am, I've noticed that cynicism is an extremely uninspiring banner to march under.
3
Jebus, Eli, this just goes all over the place. It's like you just threw words at the page. The last few paragraphs especially. "Kerry, Gore, & Co." have accomplished great things, and been great and tough leaders, while at the same time not being awful human beings, even without holding that high office, . If they had held the same office as Obama and failed, then maybe your last few paragraphs might have made some sense. As it is, it sounds like your just a horrible pessimist that can time travel and alter reality to fit your views. You state "nice guys finish last" as if it were some kind of law proven by science. I feel sorry for the logic you clearly tortured to produce this post.
4
@2 is right.
Also:
by speaking to more fundamental values than the typical liberal shibboleths, or the typical Clintonesque list of programs and policies, Obama is reaching the vast majority of people who do not follow politics or policy everyday and who look for and relate to basic values.
He has taken over the values field totally and it's awesome. HE has said we must return to responsibility which everyone can relate to because:
(a) we see how greedy bankers left us, and
(b) we all have this nagging guilt that we Americans let GWB fool us and start a bad war, and
(c) we are for social programs and liberal programs if they are responsible that is if they work and don't just foster bad values.
So he's hijacked responsibility and order and adultness -- everything the GOP has branded itself with for years since the stupid 1968 demonstrations and other idiocies of the left that served only to scare the shit out of most people.
It's brilliant. It's true. It's a tone and a wrapper than can include everything we want, and most of all, it actually reaches people in their moral hearts. Which is where most of folks are centered (they do not "live" in a rational brain, or with a "policy" outolook or "science tells us the answer" outlook).
Reagan did reach people by speaking in simple tales. Obama does the same thing. Accept it. It's good. It's working. It's Lincolnesque.
Oh and if you have criticism, please illustrate it by offering your own better speech text?
Also:
by speaking to more fundamental values than the typical liberal shibboleths, or the typical Clintonesque list of programs and policies, Obama is reaching the vast majority of people who do not follow politics or policy everyday and who look for and relate to basic values.
He has taken over the values field totally and it's awesome. HE has said we must return to responsibility which everyone can relate to because:
(a) we see how greedy bankers left us, and
(b) we all have this nagging guilt that we Americans let GWB fool us and start a bad war, and
(c) we are for social programs and liberal programs if they are responsible that is if they work and don't just foster bad values.
So he's hijacked responsibility and order and adultness -- everything the GOP has branded itself with for years since the stupid 1968 demonstrations and other idiocies of the left that served only to scare the shit out of most people.
It's brilliant. It's true. It's a tone and a wrapper than can include everything we want, and most of all, it actually reaches people in their moral hearts. Which is where most of folks are centered (they do not "live" in a rational brain, or with a "policy" outolook or "science tells us the answer" outlook).
Reagan did reach people by speaking in simple tales. Obama does the same thing. Accept it. It's good. It's working. It's Lincolnesque.
Oh and if you have criticism, please illustrate it by offering your own better speech text?
7
First Eli, your posts are so well written that they can never be too long.
Now, I am hoping that Obama is up on his Machiavelli because sometimes being the bad guy or getting your hands dirty is the best long-term solution. This fact falls into that "sad but true" category with which the Democrats must come to terms.
Now, I am hoping that Obama is up on his Machiavelli because sometimes being the bad guy or getting your hands dirty is the best long-term solution. This fact falls into that "sad but true" category with which the Democrats must come to terms.
Comments (7) RSS