2008 Just Words
posted by on March 11 at 14:15 PM
Last Wednesday on CNN, the Republican nominee for president stood in the Rose Garden next to the incumbent Republican president, who was trying to explain something. It’s no secret that our president isn’t very good at explaining things, but what he was trying to explain was brief, had presumably been written by someone in advance, and was the reason the press conference in the Rose Garden had been called in the first place. The president was trying to explain why John McCain should be the next president. The sound bite that made it into the CNN replay (and is confirmed by the official transcript) was Bush saying about McCain: “He’s a President, and he’s going to be the President who will bring determination to defeat an enemy, and a heart big enough to love those who hurt.”
I’d been enjoying the squinting and the handshaking and the two men’s actorly performance of being friends, but a little part of me dies—still, every time—when the president speaks. I waited for Anderson Cooper to pounce on the statement, or one of the talking heads to pounce on it, but everyone involved in the broadcast sat there as if what the president had just said made total sense. He’s a president. Um, actually, he’s not a president. That’s sort of the whole idea at this point. He will bring determination to defeat an enemy. Determination to defeat an enemy! Wow. Really going out on a limb there. He wants to defeat enemies. A heart big enough to love those who hurt. Jesus, really? How big of a heart does it take to love those who hurt? A really, really big one, apparently.
It’s amazing how poorly written the shit that comes out of the White House still is after seven years of practice, amazing how drained and useless language has become under Bush. It’s like his people think up words that sound good independent of context, feed them into a machine, have him read whatever comes out, and high-five each other (go team!) for coming up with something that so perfectly sounds like something while simultaneously meaning nothing (and, in the present case, implying disdain for, like, people who hurt). Repeat this process for seven years as the leader of the free world and it has an effect on, well, the whole world.
Which is why Hillary Clinton—who is smart and capable and would make a great president—going apeshit on Barack Obama recently for his rhetorical talents, for “plagiarizing” his friend Deval Patrick, for consistently arguing that words matter (the Constitution, Dr. King, JFK), seemed so hollow and disheartening and desperate. You can call it cheesy if you like, or superficial, or beside the point, but it’s not: Obama’s success revitalizes the possibilities of a very fatigued language, revitalizes the whole idea that language matters. This is a good thing, and people like it. It wasn’t until Clinton dropped this language-doesn’t-matter tack and started in on Rezko (so murky!) and the 3 a.m. phone call (so scary!) that her attacks finally got some purchase and characterized her to victory in Texas and Ohio and Rhode Island.
That was a week ago today, and in the intervening week I haven’t been Slogging much because all I can think about is the election, a topic we’ve, uh, got pretty well covered on Slog. Oh, sure, if Obama had swept I probably would have had some jumping up and down to do, but instead I had to settle last Tuesday for the bittersweetness of the narrative not going the way you think it’s going to—which is the great gift of this Democratic battle. Jon Stewart describes the battle as “an alcohol-free Edward Albee play.” The New York Times’s Michael Powell and Jeff Zeleny, in a piece of political analysis published on the front page last Thursday, wrote: “Mr. Obama once again failed to administer an electoral coup de grace, and so allowed a tenacious rival to elude his grasp,” a phrase that reminds you of the very oldest narratives, of mythology, of animals on the plain.
What we’ve got in this political cycle is what you want in any book/movie/story—you’re in a state of suspense, it turns in a way you don’t expect, it turns in another way you don’t expect, you want the end to come, you don’t want the end to come. It’s intense. Obama may be the guy who reminded us of the power of words—the March 18 issue of The New Republic is a depiction of Obama’s face drawn in bold “YES”s over a sea of gray “NO”s—but it took both Democratic candidates, Clinton and Obama, to remind us of the giddy pleasures, the depressing blows, the profound grip of an unpredictable narrative.
I'm sorry, they could be quoting poetry and giving great speeches, and all I and four-fifths of America will be saying is "314 days and a wakeup".
We've had it.
Why do they even bother putting that moron on the news - I've started watching it on DVR (comcast) just so I can fast forward whenever the WH comes on or I get so angry I want to break the TV ... and I've got a loooooong fuse ...
Wow. Skip uhe Valium and the Prozac and go directly to Halcyon. Do not pass go, do not collect $100.
And here I thought that the reason Christopher wasn't posting was because of his enormously large penis!
I want an incoherent President with whom I can have a beer.
i always thought hillary's "words don't matter" argument was poorly planned because she was using words to make it.
Yeah, I'd have mimed that one too.
After 8 years of a president who seems barely literate, any of the three likely candidates would be a relief, but of course Obama has a gift of oratory I've not seen in a politician in my lifetime.
For years I've wanted some political news show to keep track of the logical fallacies used in speeches and pundit BS. A running tabulation of how many times Bush has used the false dilemma fallacy (and an explanation of fallacies) would go a long way in increasing the public's skepticism.
There's a direct line between the "plausible deniability" of George I in Iran/Contra (Wherein the precedent was established of insulating the President from key details of illegal operations to preserve his immunity from legal consequences) to the "Depends what the definition of 'is' is" of Clinton (wherein the precedent of cultivating linguistic ambiguity was established as a means of preserving plausible deniability) to the flagrant and apparently calculated opacity of G.W.'s language mangling.
His conspicuous inability to speak in coherent sentences assures that A.)his ignorance of basic facts is always extremely plausible and B.)the meaning of his words cannot be turned against him later, because the didn't mean anything in the first place.
Being, or at least appearing to be, a gibbering idiot has turned out to make him completely immune to consequence. He's so stupid he's brilliant!
Bush's speechwriting hacks have so poisoned our language that when I heard that the Dalai Lama was coming to Seattle on behalf of "Seeds of Compassion," I assumed the organization was some faith-based group in cahoots with the White House. Have you ever tried to picture Bush's "Armies of Compassion?" Fortunately, Seeds of Compassion is actually a wonderful organization with zero connection to Bush.
Actually, this thing is going exactly as planned. The numbers for Ohio and Texas are exactly as the predictions that were leaked from obama's camp in february predicted. Obama's on track to win!
I don't know that the narrative of the Democratic primary is entirely beyond expectation. I think the fact that it plays like a movie speaks to the fact that different groups in the media, to the best of their abilities, are trying to shape the narrative. I'm not saying the media has a right/left bias, they have a bias all their own, seperate from political ideology, but inter-twined with it.
The back and forth "momentum" held by Obama then Clinton then Obama then Clinton and soon, again Obama is a media construct.
In its attempt to describe the narrative, the media shapes it. With this knowledge they shape it as they wish.
Nice post - I was thinking similar thoughts this morning about how incredibly invigorated and, well, surprised I was to hear Obama's speech at the D's convention in '04. A politician who could inspire with words??? It was amazing. Philosophers, novelists, artists, activists - these are the people we expect to be inspired by - but a politician? Amazing. And what a contrast to the emptiness of Bush, who has set such a very low standard.
I too enjoy two Democratic politicians who actually say meaningful things, even if (or maybe because) they are somewhat at odds.
But am I the only one who thinks that McCain looks like he is going to explode at any moment? He looks like he's inflated to 50 psi.
I think it`s great theater - and the Albee analogy is terrific - because the energies behind it are so broad-based and have been building up for such a long time. Back in December, when I was for Hillary (though having read Obama`s book thought wistfully last year, oh, if only someone like that COULD be president - won´t happen, though`) I didn´t know how tired I was of the Tony Blair middle, of the predestined failure of the moderate left in America, of self-aggrandizing baby boomers who think they set the house on fire but really just kicked some dings into the furniture, of the rhetoric, yes rhetoric of hopelessness and muddle and partial surrender as a prerequisite to any thought or speech. Obama is revolutionary because he reveals that the majority of Americans are progressive, are nothing like the hate-spewers of the media Right, do care and do have faith in the ideals the U.S. was based on. And they know bullshit when they hear it, which is why only a fraction of them usually make it to the polls. I wouldn´t want the comparison to make its way around for the wrong reasons, but Obama is Nader with a posse (and Nader`s great failure is to not realize there is hardly anyone marching with him, especially after 2004).
Yes, Obama COULD be more experienced. He`s never been a P.O.W.. But other than that neither of the other candidates have shit on him. He understands what needs to stop, and by stopping it that itself is a new beginning. I have been watching this from outside the country the last four months and running into Obama volunteers - from other countries, half-American, immigrant - all over Mexico. It seems to me this is a great transition that allows people from a wide gamut of attitudes and lifestyles to agree on the basics that are the only kind of agreements that this flawed country (the US) were founded on. THAT makes me think Obama will win.
Oh, I´m on the Slog, I forgot that I have to say something nasty: FUCK Geraldine Ferraro.
"Which is why Hillary Clinton—who is smart and capable and would make a great president—..."
YOU ARE WRONG. SHE IS A MONSTER.
Bush: I m in ur face makin you prez.
McCain: What?
Bush: U r so old, u be stupinz.
McCain: Huh?
Bush: I can has cheezburger!
Thanks for the post, Mr. Frizzelle. I've always wondered if Bush's speech writers really don't know what they're doing or if can write but have to refrain from using words with more than a few syllables because Bush can't deliver them with any confidence.
Obama's ineffable nebulosity revitalizes the whut, now?
Yeah, the speech isn't very good. Did you really need six paragraphs to say that? Didn't they teach you in journalist school about getting to the point?
@19: Didn't they teach you in intarwebs school that blogging isn't journalism?
@14 FTW. nice one, grant.
Extremely well done, Christopher. Slog could use more of this.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).