What I found notable, though, was the level of discourse. Most of the speeches I've heard were during his higher-rolling campaigning days, before the crippling realities of an elected office tempered otherwise great ideas and hopes. This was also the era when our President was "goin' nuculer" on our language.
On the one hand, it seems incredible that someone with notoriously poor speech, so universally regarded as poor of speech and tongue a word for mangled grammar was coined from his name, could not just win the biggest popularity contest in the country, but win re-election and hold popular esteem in the process.
On another, these supporters are the same people most responsible for the propaganda and slander to cripple anything a center or left-leaning person tries to accomplish. Okay, yes, I have a relatively soft heart in terms of social issues and tend to lean leftward, but my biggest gripe is the blind acceptance/criticism--from BOTH sides--of a person or proposal associated with a specific ideology. Rejecting an idea because it came from a conservative has roots in the same soil as rejecting a job application because the last name is Latino or cavity searching anyone with dark skin. It's all a degree of discrimination--in some cases, there's a purpose and a reasonable use, but blind acceptance and universal application is a dangerous, dangerous place. It seems bizarre to decide not to accept an unaired idea simply because the speaker is of a particular bent, yet many who have biased themselves against Obama supported Bush.
Wouldn't you think that if you're going to blindly reject an idea, it would be the one delivered in poor-to-grotesque language?
And here's where I was headed: there's a considerable population who like the idea of the President being an average person of the sort you'd meet in a bar or coffee shop. For this population, Palin and Bush were great candidates. Erudition is actually a handicap with this crowd--it's a sign of bein all high-faltuin and edumacated, and that's a BAD thing. To follow this thinking, the President of the United States of America, the leader of the free world, should be a small-town farmer or factory worke, the sort of guy whose world extends as far as the state fair if his prize hogs have a good run.
No thank you!
True, I like the idea of being able to sit and talk with anyone for whom I vote or has been chosen to represent me in a public arena. But I sure hope that if I ever were to meet such a person, I would come away feeling considerably inferior; not that I want to be belittled, but impressed by the scope and acuity of thought, the refinement of speech and interpersonal communication I encounter.
Part of my initial support for Obama was based upon his level of discourse. How great to have a candidate who sounds like his cranial density is neural, not osseous.
But now, after realizing the realities of political pressures, Obama's discourse has been compromised, too. Instead of delivering a nice speech with refined arguments and support threaded with notable quips, his rhetorical flow had frequent interruptions to explain implications and emphasize points already heavily weighted by their context.
Granted, I wouldn't expect his predecessor or many of his opponents to make a speech of equal elocution, but how sad to see the drive to stupidity elevated even that far.
No comments:
Post a Comment