A recent article at vox noted that the "White House" claims Obama can't give a "big speech" on Ferguson because President Obama, unlike the candidate, cannot "bridge divides," might "infuriate conservatives," and make hard problems "impossible." Lord, these people are stupid.
1) Presidential rhetoric does not have as its ONLY goal conciliation. Sometimes, believe it or not, presidents say--gasp!--mean things;
2) Conservatives are infuriated when this president speaks, and when he's silent, and when he stands tall, and when he's small, and when he eats green eggs and ham, and when he sees a grand slam. Get the picture, nincompoops?! By trembling at the thought of conservative anger, you cede control of the president's rhetoric to conservatives, you dipsh%$#;
3) Where are these solvable problems? On what do you think the House will move? Immigration? And, by the by, look around. Some conservatives are with you on the militarization of police;
4) Candidate Obama didn't bridge squat. He persuaded people to vote for him, as he did in 2012, by recognizing problems affecting people, articulating positions that a majority thought likely would solve those problems, and proving considerably more attractive than the alternative. And candidate Obama wasn't afraid to attack the alternative, either. Sometimes, presidents peel the paint off of the national house--have you read TR or FDR? Heard of Truman?
5) Sometimes, rhetoric takes time and effort. You should know that one speech seldom resolves all problems, or did you believe your own propaganda about the race speech? Seriously, you need to develop ideas and stick to them.
This president is likely to go down in rhetorical history as an eloquent man who completely lacked a sense of timing--what the Greeks termed kairos. The second he took office, he lost all ability to seize an opportunity. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, but these people piss me off.
Comments