Oratorical Animal

If It Bleeds, It Leads: Tonight's Debate Topics

Bob Schieffer of CBS News has released his list (Who died and made him debate god?) of topics for this evening's debate on foreign policy. They are: America’s role in the world; Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan; Red Lines – Israel and Iran; The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I; The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II; The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World...

Honestly, can we dispense with these people and let every debate become a town hall debate? Or, at least, let ordinary people write all of the questions. Because this is ridiculous. Why am I so crabby? Let me count the ways.

1) These are all topics that have seen discussion in previous debates. The candidates have fixed, canned positions and so tonight will see nothing but a reiteration of those positions.

2) Not only are these fixed, canned issues, but they are tailor-made "political" issues. By that, I mean these are topics made prominent by powerful, political constituencies--the China lobby, the Israel Lobby, defense contractors ("the new face of terrorism" requires new weapons, you know), and so forth. This is foreign policy conceived by people surrounded by lobbyists and infused by their money and talk. This is inside baseball; it will be every cocktail party Bob Schieffer has ever attended.

3) The map of the world includes nations beyond the Middle East, South Asia, and China. Truly. In fact, there's this place called "Europe." We fought two world wars there; the EU just won the Nobel; its finances threaten to crash the world economy; there are LOTS of nuclear missiles there. Just one example by the by. There's also this place called "Mexico." It's next door. Mitt Romney once claimed its citizens don't understand economics. Its growth rate now exceeds ours and the previous star south of our border, a place called "Brazil." It will host the World Cup and the Olympics. Bob Schieffer might have heard of the latter; he probably has not heard of the former.

4) These are not foreign policy issues; these are national security issues. The two are not the same thing. If we'd wanted a debate on defense policy, we could have scheduled one. Schieffer reinforces the notion that foreign policy consists almost exclusively of the decision to shoot people or not. That is not and should not be the focus of foreign policy.

5) Most important, this list destroys my naive hope.

This campaign's foreign policy rhetoric can best be characterized as a defensive crouch. Both candidates have taken aim at our "enemies," on the threats they believe the world poses to us.

This list adds to that. With the exception of the first, vague area, it focuses on perceived American or Israeli enemies (which, to many, are basically the same thing). Like a small market "Action News" anchor, Mr. Schieffer believes, "If it bleeds, it leads." Given this list, it is inevitable that George W. Bush's world will emerge from this debate--either you are with us or agin us. 

Neither this debate nor this discourse serves the nation well. I am a college professor and perhaps the biggest change in students since my time at Bradley University is the sheer number of them who have spent time abroad. They study abroad, they do projects abroad, they live on other continents, they explore, they laugh, they learn, they fall in and out of love. They approach the world with open arms, offering a radical hospitality to those different from them. It's truly remarkable to see. It is nothing at all like our presidential candidates or, far worse, our debate moderators.

We do not have to demonize the world; we do not have to look constantly for enemies; we do not have to be small. We are a big nation, filled with strong people. We are better than this. 

Why We Care About Binders Full of Women

In the debate last night, Katherine Fenton asked, "In what new ways to you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male  counterparts earn?" President Barack Obama answered first. He began with a "Mamathon," (see Primary Colors) praising his mother and grandmother, and also articulated policies that could raise the wages of women: the Lily Ledbetter Act, better educational opportunities, etc. It was a good answer.

Mitt Romney then joined the immortal ranks of Gerald Ford (no Communist domination of Poland) and George H. W. Bush (looking at his watch) in the debate mistake Hall of Fame. He ignored the question and sought to explain how he used affirmative action for women when he staffed his administration as Governor of Massachusetts. He asked women's groups for help in finding good applicants and they brought him "whole binders full of women." Oh Mitt.

The phrase and image exploded across the culture. I taught allusion in my mass lecture class today, a tactic in which the orator refers to a person, place, or thing in our culture. I began, "So, when I say, "binders full of women..'" and 200 people cracked up. I didn't need to finish.

To me, this raises an interesting rhetorical question. Why does this work? Why does one phrase or image, and not another, spread? What follows are some tentative thoughts.

First, there is the textual context. The governor was asked about equal pay; he avoided the question in order to try to illustrate his personal commitment to women. It's another instance of Romney seeking to substitute personal caring for a larger ethic of care--I've written about this before. In addition, the text makes clear that neither he nor his staff--in 2003--knew any professional women they considered qualified for his cabinet. That tells us something about his life and the circles in which he lived. Finally, he argued for flexibility for women in the workplace because, after all, they have to go home and make dinner for children. Again, his vision of "the" family is powerfully clear. The image was framed such that Romney reduced nearly all women to a single caricature--he doesn't know "them," they don't travel in his circles, they have to go home to make dinner, etc.

Second, there' is the potent visuality--we can see a binder in our minds and the image itself is ripe for appropriation; almost immediately, all kinds of cards, images, attacks popped up all over the web, the twitterverse, Facebook. Women stuffed into binders, women trying to get out of binders, Romney carrying binders. It's also such an old-fashioned term; it represents an older America, an America of white guys paging through resumes, disdainfully deciding, from their inner circle, who might--just might--be admitted. Big desks, wood-paneled offices, binders on conference tables, men in expensive suits, sipping coffee brought to them by women, deciding whether women should play a role in the governance of Massachusetts. 

Third, there's a dehumanizing sense about it--women are unknown pages in a book, they're resumes, they're not real. Binders are full of them.

Fourth, it ties nicely into the existing negative narrative of Mitt the Uncaring--the 47% statement, the I like to fire people, the I know NASCAR owners, the $10,000 bet--the kind of blooper he avoided in the first debate came roaring back. He's condescending, oblivious, nostalgic for that big office and wood paneled world--a space where the only place for women are in the pages of a binder.

Fifth, consistent also with the Romney campaign, the story was a lie. He didn't go searching for women; a nonprofit gave him the binders. Mitt can't even tell the truth when he screws up. 

Finally, for these reasons, the binder image serves as a condensation symbol, as Murray Edelman would put it. They are public symbols into which people compress world views, ideological systems. Doris Graber called them "mental shorthand," and my friend and former colleague Thomas Lessl offered the Darwin fish on cars as an example--if you see that, you know almost immediately the mindset of the driver, the ideology of that person.

Mitt's binders are mental shorthand for his view of women--placed, categorized, bound, subject to review, filed on a shelf, called upon to make dinner, used dishonestly to make a political point. Its potent textual context, visual power, and narrative context--the campaign in which it happened--make it a beautiful symbol of Mitt Romney's world. Best of all for the Obama campaign, the clip is there--to be played over and over and over....

Mitt's Mendacity and the Politics of Distrust

Former Governor Mitt Romney lies a great deal more than is usual for politicians. He is perhaps rivaled only by George W. Bush and Richard Nixon when it comes to lying about public affairs (private affairs would, of course, add another president to the list) in recent history, but even they do not match what can only be described as Romney's contempt for the truth and the American people.

I do not use such terminology lightly. Steve Benen has spent the election season chronicling Mitt's mendacity and my title is a tribute to the enormous amount of work that he has done. I'd quibble with a number of the claims Benen calls lies--I think he stretches the definition a bit too far--but what is striking and frightening about Governor Romney is that so many of his lies are both easily checked and constantly repeated. Most politicians--indeed, nearly all of them--would not lie on this scale because they'd be embarrassed to be so easily found out. Not Mitt. Let's take 3 examples.

First, Mitt claims repeatedly that the president has doubled the size of the deficit. When President Obama took the oath of office, the deficit was roughly $1.3 trillion. This fiscal year, the deficit was $1.08 trillion. That is a strange definition of "doubled." The first time Romney said it, perhaps, it was a mistake. He has said repeatedly since then, even after his "mistake" has been pointed out. This is a lie.

Second, Governor Romney asserted in his major foreign policy speech this week, as he has said throughout the year, that "The president has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years." No. The president has signed 3 new free trade agreements in the past four years--Columbia, Panama, and South Korea. In fact, Obama's normal allies fought him on these. But he got them ratified and he signed them.

Third, in the wake of the Libyan consulate attack, Romney wondered why the threats against us have grown worse. In fact, they haven't. The number of attacks on US embassies and consulates is near an all-time low . After that attack, thousands of Libyans took to the streets to defend the US against the militants.

I picked these instances because they are easy--easy to check, easy to find the truth. A Romney speechwriter could easily have used that strange and wonderful thing called the "Google machine" to find the truth. In short, these are lies. And they are only the tip of the iceberg. Romney does this all of the time.

It is also important to note, in the face of widespread cynicism, that this is not the norm. The former governor lies on an unprecedented scale. Even his Republican rivals understood that. So, why does this matter?

First, the rhetorical habits of successful, older men do not change after a victory. If Romney lies this consistently and thoroughly as a candidate, we can expect that he will do the same as a president. Richard Nixon and George W. Bush provide excellent examples of that fact. Bush was dishonest about his economic plan and it's effects as a candidate; he lied as a president. Romney will do the same. A dishonest president poses a severe problem for public deliberation and is likely to lead us into disasters such as the Iraq war.

Second, a Romney victory after such a campaign creates an incentive system; if Romney proves that such lying leads to victory, a good many imitators, Republican and Democrat, are likely to arise in his wake. It's true of any sort of winning strategy. If Moneyball works for the Oakland A's, how much better will it work for the Boston Red Sox or New York Yankees? Similarly, if a minimally gifted politician such as Romney can win with lies, how much more will they do for Chris Christie or Andrew Cuomo?

Finally, this level of dishonesy corrodes our common purpose, our sense of public self. Romney's dishonesty reflects a determination that he owes his fellow citizens nothing. It is a clear case of rational choice theory, that vision of an individual, with no ethical constraints. Romney wishes to win. Lying will get him there. Thereore, it is rational to lie.

But such behavior erodes our common bonds as citizens. We become wary of one another and we lose any sense of our fellow citizens as people we can trust. Trust, in turn, is a prerequisite of democratic life. People cannot work together, they cannot live together, unless they suspend their suspicion of one another. Imagine hiking, rock climbing, jumping rope, walking the streets after nightfall, talking to school board members, purchasing medicine and so on. If a pervasive sense of mistrust takes hold, those activities become ever more difficult and then impossible. At that point, we're living in the world of Hobbes, otherwise known as Syria.

Mitt Romney lies. He lies when he needs to do so and when he does not. He lies about things easily checked and things opaque. He lies by commission and omission. He is not simply "one of those politicians" or some such. He is something new under the sun. This is a problem.

 

Pujols and Cardinals fans

I've spent my life as a Cubs fan, which gives me a lot of perspective on disappointment. Sadly, the Cubs have again had a terrible year while the Cardinals again are in the playoffs. But for the many Cardinal fans I know, a new and nasty tone has entered their cheers. It's not enough for the Cards to win; they've also got to run down Albert Pujols.

For those who live under a rock or who are named "Jim Aune," Albert Pujols became a free agent after the 2011 season. Rather than renewing his contract with his life-long team, the St. Louis Cardinals, he signed with the Los Angeles Angels.

Pujols is a great player, perhaps one of the two or three best in the history of baseball. He gave 11 of the best seasons any fan could want to St. Louis and was the lynchpin for playoff and championship teams. Plus, he's a great guy. No steroids. Wonderful family. All-around nice human being.

Of course, no fans know why he left because they are not personal friends with him. He may have left for the money. He may have decided he wanted a fresh start, since Walt Jocketty and Tony LaRussa had left the organization. Maybe he wanted a different challenge. Perhaps he and his family wanted to live in a more diverse culture, with a much stronger Latino element. Simply put, we do not know. We do know that he gave St. Louis better baseball than anyone it has ever had, with the possible exception of Stan Musial.

None of this mattered when he left. Cardinal fans, normally among the best in baseball, have been relentlessly nasty. They crowed when he got off to a poor start in a new league and with a new team. They seemingly celebrated every bad game or false note. They nastily compared him to the Angels' other great players or to his primary replacement with the Cards, Carlos Beltran. They cheered when the Angels fell short in a second half playoff drive. They declared Pujols washed up.

He hit .285/.343/.859 with 30 home runs and 105 RBIs. Particularly given his poor start, this was an impressive performance, if not quite up to his career standards. Given that he moved to the superior league, however, he did well. By way of comparison, Beltran hit .269/.346/.842 with 32 home runs and 95 RBIs. The Angels were in it until near the end, their division produced two playoff teams and they have an excellent foundation for the future, especially since the Rangers collapsed and the A's always have salary issues. The Angels will contend for years. Pujols has nothing to be ashamed of.

A good many Cardinals fans, however, should take a good, hard look in the mirror. Few fans--I should know--get a player like this. They enjoyed him for better than a decade and, for much of that time, he took a home team discount on his salary. Get over it, Cards fans. Appreciate Pujols for the great player that he was and is. Enjoy the memories and enjoy his talent on a new team. 

For Georgia Football Fans, Gameday is Groundhog Day

When I arrived in Athens in the fall of 1997, I became a Georgia football fan. My alma mater (Bradley) does not compete in football and neither does my graduate program (Kansas). North Dakota State plays great football but, like Illinois, does not compete in a major conference, with all of the hoopla and fun. So, Georgia it was and is. I cannot be accused of jumping on the bandwagon or of the moral degradation of Yankee fans or the like. GA football was not good when I started watching. It had its moments, but consistent success eluded the program until Mark Richt showed up on campus. Since then, it's become a consistent winner.

But oh the price. Game day is Groundhog day. Nothing about the Georgia football team under Mark Richt has ever changed. He has been exactly the same coach since about his fourth or fifth game on campus. He has neither learned anything nor forgotten anything. He has neither improved nor declined. Everything. Is. Exactly. The. Same. It's mindnumbing.

The Georgia offense features play action out of either the I formation or the shotgun. It almost always offers a smart, capable quarterback with an occasional transcendent talent; a power back and a speed back; one (1) talented, go-to wide receiver; a bevy of other athletically gifted receivers who, sadly, cannot catch the football--drops are a hallmark of the Richt era; and an offensive line that physically dominates inferior foes, finesses equal teams, and is dominated by elite programs.

The Georgia defense features a bend but don't break philosophy (no matter what the coaches say). It almost always offers interior linemen who dominate inferior foes, finesse equal teams and are dominated by elite programs; a superb linebacking corps that features one monster hybrid standup defensive end or linebacker who terrorizes opposing quarterbacks; and a secondary filled with athletically talented and fundamentally football illiterate players. Watching Georgia's secondary against a talented team in a two minute drill is an R rated experience; children under 17 should not be allowed in the stadium. But throughout the rest of the game, too, Georgia defensive backs point a lot, shout at each other, never get set, and never seem to keep track of the other team's receivers. One of the South Carolina scores yesterday was a classic example. Shaw rolled right; the whole secondary followed ("SHINY OBJECT!! SHINY OBJECT!!") to cover the two receivers on that side, leaving one on the other open. Watching the Georgia secondary is like watching pee-wee soccer.

But there's more. The program is like repeated summer stock performances of "The Sound of Music." The faces may change, but the music remains the same. The generic elements include:

1) Criminals. The over/under on off-seasons arrests can fairly be set at 5. The over/under on suspensions for some or all of the first 3 games can fairly be set at 4.

2) A huge and hugely intelligent offensive lineman. He blocks people and majors in biochem genetic engineering and art history. He will play in the NFL, become a research chemist, and invent the virus the creates the world of the Walking Dead. His GPA becomes PR fodder to balance #1.

3) A defensive back who simply must play some wide receiver, he's sooooo talented. His presence on the field signals one of 3 plays: A bubble screen to him; a handoff or toss on an end around run; or, most cleverly, a fake handoff on an end around followed by a deep throw to the aforementioned go to receiver

4) Awful time management. Ron Zook can never remember the score. Mark Richt can't tell time. Seriously. Simply terrible clock management.

5) Excellent placekickers. Richt's stoic manner seemingly depresses his team, but it works wonders with nervous kickers. If he loses this job, he should simply become a kicking guru. His cards could read: Mark Richt. Kicker Whisperer.

6) Superb fullbacks. They always block better than the linemen, which is kind of sad when you think about it.

7) They will come out completely flat for one big game a year and lose (see last night). They will come out completely over-hyped for one game a year and have a 50/50 chance to win, depending on whether the hitting balances out the turnovers (I suspect the upcoming Florida game).

None of this ever changes. For instance, Georgia quarterbacks are magicians with the ball, superb at fakes and the rest. Richt must spend hours training them, like Mitt Romney's horse. But Georgia's offense cannot call plays. I don't mean their tactical acuity; I mean they cannot get the play from the coach's head to the quarterback to the team. They cannot do it. The play clock always runs down, they burn a time out or two a game, they point and shout a lot. It's a mess.

It also results in a program that wins roughly 8 games a year. When the quarterback is a freshman or sophomore and the injury bug/Athens police force is particularly unforgiving, you can drop a win or two. When the quarterback is a junior or senior and the injury bug/Athens police force is particularly forgiving, you add a win or two. Georgia always goes to a bowl, usually in the south, and it plays a competitive game. In fact, it often graciously gives the Big Ten the only competitive game--sometimes the only win--they get the entire bowl season.  

The dozens of diehard Illini football fans would kill for this program and outsiders never understand the criticism of Richt--look at his record! But the unrelenting sameness of the program is devastating over time. The good plays appear again and again. The mistakes are never fixed. The players are always arrested. It's insanely repetitive. Realize, too, I moved away 5 years ago and I never read the Athens paper, listen to a local sports talk show, go to a game, or visit a Bulldawg web site. I watch them 4 or 5 times a year when they are available on my tv. And I totally recognize them.

In other words, every Bulldog fan knows exactly what Bill Murray experienced on his Groundhog Days. We've lived this movie. For days, seasons, and now decades. To say the least, it's unhinged us just the tiniest bit.

 

Campaign Rhetoric and Economic Argument: A Lost Dialogue of Aristotle

The scene: A lovely path outside of Athens. PK, an old master of theoria oikonomica and PR, a young, nubile public official seek the truth of public economic argument.

PK: Let us pause in this fine grove of trees and consider the ways and means of public talk on matters oikonomica.

PR: I would rather dash across the land to Marathon! I may make it in three turns of the dial or less!

PK: Now, young master, what did we determine last week of the philosophy of Rovian Callicles?

PR (sulkily): Rhetoric is useful because the true and just are by nature stronger than their opposites, so that if judgments are not made the right way [the true and the just] are necessarily defeated [by their opposites]. And this is worthy of censure.

PK: And is Rovian Callicles worthy of censure?

PR: Yeeeaahhhh.

PK: And how long will his words live?

PR: Not long. Truth pressed to earth will rise again. How long? Not long, because no lie can live forever. How long? Not long, because you still reap what you sow. How long? Not long. Becaue the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice [Heavy sigh].

PK: Very good. Now, let us pause and consider what troubles you.

PR: The Obamian claims that the wild disbursement of public monies makes prosperity for all, and yet I know this is not true and I must say that it is not true and yet the people, in whom I claim to have the greatest of trust, are now believing his seductive words and those of his sage, the Explainius Clintonian, and I keep watching and watching Clintonian's speech on parchmenttube.dialogus and it is so true and yet it cannot be true because Maximus Romnius says it is not true, yet he will not explain why and I consult the Oracle Ayndian Rand for signs and portents and nothing is there, so that when I went on Face the Publius, I behaved as the fool. I do not know what to do.

PK: It is indeed a dilemma, young master. Let us begin at the beginning, for that is a very good place to start. Does the Obamian truly claim that throwing money to the winds always works?

PR: YES!

PK: No. He is of the school of Keynes, a most wise and careful oracle, one who believes above all in context and prudence. What was of the world and in the world when the Obamian began his time in office?

PR: The Younger Shrub left something of a mess.

PK: Oy vey I should say so. Colonial wars made without payment; prescription herbs for all without payment; the wealthy ran wild with no restraint; the Athens exchange collapsed; The Theban reinsurance group threatened to bring down the financial system; GDP dropped 9% in the last quarter of 2008. So, when the economy is in a state of collapse, what should the Obamian have done?

PR: Cut the budget!

PK: Truly? For if the businesses will not spend, because there is no demand, and if the people will not spend, for they fear the loss of their livelihoods because the businesses might lay them off, is this not a vicious circle? One making miserable the other who makes yet more miserable the first?

PR: Hmmm.

PK: Hmmm indeed! And if the government then takes more money out of circulation by cutting back, what might happen then?

PR: The fairy of confidence will come and all will be well because the people will know that government taxes in the future will not be high so that they can spend their monies now.

PK: Yes, some have tried that way. Who?

PR [knowingly and sulkily]: The Cameron of the Isle Brittania.

PK: Did it work?

PR: Nooooo.

PK: My young friend, your foolish theory is like that of the man who took his empty wineskin and threw it in a vat of wine, expecting that the wine would flow of its own accord into the skin. Supply-side is a creation of the cave. Instead, we must do as the Obamian did, more than he did in fact. Fill the wineskin, spend the monies now to spur demand. The wine will not flow of its own accord; we must help.

PR: So he does want wild spending!

PK: Oh, young master. What did the Explainius Clintonian do during his term in office?

PR: He raised taxes [scuffs ground with foot] and cut spending during the good times.

PK: Context and prudence, my young friend, context and prudence. Good judgment asks of us to see the means available to us and to use those means in each case. The wise oracle Keynes taught us to save our monies during the good times and use them in the bad. And how do we know this is all true?

PR [doubtfully]: The oracle Keynes is wise?

PK: Yes. And because we use our own brains. We see the world and we gather the evidence. But we also know that it is true because Maximus Romnius has said so.

PR: NO!!!

PK: Yes. He has said cuts to our forces of defense will cost us jobs. That implies that...?

PR: Defense spending creates jobs?

PK: Yes. And, since even the Aynian Rand says that all dollars are the same, if defense spending creates jobs, then...?

PR [wonderingly]: Spending creates jobs.

PK: If....

PR: Other, um, sources of spending are exhausted and interest rates on loans are already at the, um, zero bound? If we are in, um, hm, a liquidity trap?

PK: Very, very good. If even the Head of the Federalus Reservius cannot throw enough money into the economy to make it hum, then fiscal policy is what we must turn to because it is all that we have left. And we know that is happening because...?

PR: Negative real interest rates.

PK: Indeed. When people are willing to pay the government to hold its bonds, then there is no chance of inflation and no way the wine will flow into the skins of its own accord. So, if the Maximus Romnius agrees with all of this, as his statement on defense spending shows, then why would he say otherwise?

PR [sadly]: He is of the school of Rovian Callicles. He does not believe that the truth shall set you free.

PK: No. No, he does not. And now, my young friend, you may run as you wish.

PR: I shall go to Marathon!

PK [smiling]: And how long will it take?

PR: Four turns of the dial, sir. Four turns.

 

No Drama Obama

I'm more than usually disappointed with the media reaction to the president's nomination acceptance address last night. The response seemed to drop into 3 categories: 1) Liked it, but not his best. No real reasons given; 2) Disliked it--usually, a glandular reaction. I didn't feel a chill up my spine. The hair didn't rise on my arms; 3) Disliked it--I don't know what he'll do; the speech wandered.

The last reaction (I'm looking at you, Kevin Drum) is simply stupid; it reflects someone who did not listen carefully to the speech. Overall, though, none of the three types addressed the function of the speech nor did the pundits give much in the ways of reasons for their reactions. I honestly don't mean to trash everyone here--I'm not that sort of writer. But it bothers me. Here's the alternative:

1) The speech (and the video) deployed the full resources of the office. The film showed Obama in nearly every corner of the White House, doing presidential things. The speech relied deeply on the authority of the office and on his experience as president. He narrated his history at conventions, building to his renomination. He referred to his victory as authorization for his argument last night: "You didn't elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear. You elected me to tell you the truth." He listed his achievements as president. He proclaimed his goals as president. He announced, "I'm the president," pretty much like this guy. If Nixon hadn't tainted the words, I'm pretty sure the tag line for every ad would be "Re-elect the President."

Incumbency means a lot in American politics. Only 4 elected presidents (Taft, Hoover, Carter, H.W. Bush--excepting the unelected Ford) since 1900 have failed in their bids for reelection. The biggest barrier to election is the timber test, the feeling that a person simply isn't big enough, doesn't possess the right stuff, to be president. An incumbent does not have that problem and wishes to emphasize that test. Thus, Obama amplifies himself as president, deploying the visuals of the office, invoking the troops, surrounding himself with patriotic symbols, articulating his role again and again--as I tweeted last night, the first half of the speech was a State of the Union.

Equally important, it was a structured, clear articulation of his purpose as president. The introduction reflected on his journey to the moment. He then forecast his major points: "jobs, the economy, taxes and deficits, energy, education, war and peace." He discussed each issue, moving the economy from first to last. After the specific policies, he articulated the larger vision--citizenship, in this together--of which the policies were specific expressions. He concluded with a call for audience participation, an altar call, as it were. This is the way a president talks. He's running for re-election. Which is why...

2) The attacks on "his opponents" sought to diminish them. They are too small, too blinkered, too petty even to name, much less to govern. Nearly every attack or response tried to make Mitt Romney smaller, to debunk his persona. His economic plan? "Feel a cold comng on? Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call us in the morning." His foreign poicy experience? "You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can't visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally."

As Nate Silver and a few others have noted, Obama wishes the election to be a choice between two candidates and not a referendum on his performance. The convention speakers and the president himself nicely defended his record (especially the Big Dog). But, more particularly, the president, from the standpoint of the Oval Office, one of only 5 living men to hold this position, argued Mitt Romney simply doesn't measure up. Programmatically, politically, and personally, he doesn't have the right stuff.

In short, Obama's presidential performance last night sought to contrast sharply with former Governor Romney's lack of same. He's not presidential. I am.

3) The speech lacked some of president's characteristic flair, but most often employed rhythmic strategies; in fact, it was full of them. Allitaration, assonance, parallelism, balanced construction and so forth. Note the ending in particular. Rhythmic speech creates participation, like an earworm. You find yourself flowing, feeling the movement, bouncing with the president, rocking and shouting and wow, you just clicked the button to donate $250.00. Didn't see that coming. Once the audience joins the rhythm, it's hard to interrupt the flow and break out of the mind set, particularly when the speaker occupies a high status position already.

This was a very good speech, given his strategy, the other convention speakers, and the narrative of the convention. Contrary to a few others, I don't believe it was a cautious speech, nor is incumbency a cautious strategy. There are millions of Americans who do not believe he is presidential, so it is risky. But it's a good choice against a political party that has a hard time appearing responsible and a candidate who quite often appears quite weak.

Regardless of how I assess it, however, I should try to explain it--and my reasons for my evaluation. That's as much, if not more important.

 

There He Goes Again: The Big Dog at the DNC

Bill Clinton's DNC speech has received universal praise and I agree. There doesn't seem to be much point in working through the whole thing, but let me point out three elements that helped to make it such a strong rhetorical performance in its setting.

1) Clinton advanced the convention narrative. The great, late Thomas Farrell once wrote a little-noticed piece, arguing that political conventions, if they are to work, need to advance a clear, coherent narrative to which all speakers contribute. Clinton did so in two ways.

First, his speech complemented the other major performance in the convention thus far, that of Michelle Obama. She amplified the president's character as formative of his platform. Clinton amplified the president's achievements as reflective of his character. Each posed the relationship between character and policy as reciprocal, but each emphasized different ends of the spectrum. Unlike, as I noted yesterday, Ann Romney and Chris Christie, the Clinton/FLOTUS speeches fused.

Second, the Big Dog cleared the argumentative field. He responded to each charge made by the Republicans and he refuted them. Viewers may agree or disagree, but the arguments did not go unanswered. This frees the vice president and president--they can choose to engage the Republicans again, attack them, forward new proposals, whatever. I suspect, if I'm reading the dynamic of the convention correctly, President Obama will respond to the Rs to some extent, but he will mainly use the freedom Clinton has given him to rise above the fray and chart his future course.

2) Clinton uses evidence better than any contemporary politician. The text is chock full of examples, statistics, analogies and even some authority evidence (rare for presidents or ex-presidents--they are the authorities). Clinton made very few claims that were not extensively supported by evidence, which adds to the believability of his arguments. We are more likely to accept arguments with evidence and we are more likely to trust an orator who offers evidence.

Equally important, he did so without lying. Paul Ryan tried to fill the argumentative role at the RNC, but told so many falsehoods that he himself became the story and was the second most important person to overshadow the nominee (cough--CLINT--cough).

The fact checkers have been unable to find anything of substance Clinton missed. They've argued a bit with his argument that Obama tried to compromise, but that's not a fact, that's an opinion. When Clinton used the 4% figure to claim the lowest increase in health care costs, they acknowledge the figure is correct but dispute the reason why which is again a matter for argument not fact checking. In short, the fact checkers can't find a single fact Clinton got wrong.

The Big Dog delivered a long, complex policy address and missed no facts.

3) Finally, Clinton offered the rest of the party, including the president, a great arsenal of argument. The speech is organized topically--that is, by major facets or aspects. It mainly consists of a series of commplaces, to use the term loosly. Perhaps more accurately, it uses what the debater in me calls "blocks." These are set pieces of refutation, with claim, evidence, and reasoning. There is his deficit block, his welfare block, his health care block, etc. There are two huge advantages to this structure.

First, it's what the Bradley extempers used to call unified analysis. Clinton offered any number of reasons to support Obama. A listener might reject the foreign policy reason ("He's a Democrat! He's weak!"). But that still leaves 10, 12, 14 independent reasons to support an Obama reelection. Each block offers an independent reason to vote Obama and, taken together, even if you eliminate HALF, you still have a substantive argument to reject the Republicans and reelect the president. To use another debate term, Clinton spread; he offered so many arguments the opponents simply are never going to have the chance to respond to each and every one on such a prominent platform.

Second, because they are independent blocks of argument, they can be lifted out at will. Equally important, they depend only to a small extent on linguistic style to work; it's mostly about the argument. So, anybody--a president, Clinton himself, a senate candidate, whomever--they can lift  blocks out, mix and match them to adapt to local circumstance, and use them to respond to Republican charges. If you need a welfare chunck, borrow it. If you want a health care argument, check it out. The great arsensal of argument. Available to all. That's rhetorical leadership.

A great speech.

Ann Romney and Michelle Obama: The Spousal Speech at National Conventions

Over the past several election cycles (1992, perhaps?), the wives of the presidential nominees (and they have been wives--it is fun in to speculate about a Bill Clinton spousal speech) have taken to the podium of the national political conventions. It may be a sad commentary on our political system, but the purpose of the genre for the larger convention has become clear. They personalize the nominee. That is, whether our current system has so far disconnected us from our candidates or because, fed a steady diet of reality television, we now demand to know the man as well as the politician, these speeches, in the immortal words of the RNC, try to humanize the candidate.

Yet there is more to it than that. Classical rhetorical and poetic theory teaches us the reciprocal relationship between plot and character. Plot shapes character; character only shows itself through the action of the plot. Yet character also makes plot; without people, nothing happens. People do deeds. We tend to assess stories and oratory based on this relationship--heck, we do so in life. This sort of person would not do that thing. Plot and character interact.

For the spousal speech to result in a satisfactory aesthetic and ethical whole, the audience must perceive the link between character and plot--that this sort of man would do that sort of deed. This is why Michelle Obama's speech is significantly better than Ann Romney's effort.

Don't get me wrong; I think Ann Romney did about as well as she could. But neither the speech itself nor the night at the RNC convention articulated Mitt Romney's character with his political program. Mostly, I suspect, that is because he presented no political program at the convention. But the gap is clear. Ann Romney talked about her husband's fine qualities, but, as I have noted before, they are personal characteristics. They are not linked to political programs or to those he does not know. She talks about the love they share for all Americans, but nowhere does she actualize that love--in an activity, a program, a proposal that would address, for insatnce, the needs of the working moms she so movingly addressed. The closest she came was when she talked about the fine schools Romney supported in Massachusetts, but there was no education program for a Romney presidency. This was reinforced by Governor Christie's keynote, which effectively rebutted Ann Romney's emphasis on love and negated her husband's status as leader of the party. Ann Romney's speech fails to become a whole because it fails to show us that this man will do that deed. There is no reciprocity between personal character and political action. 

By contrast, Michelle Obama's speech wove together those two concerns. She crafted the president's political program as a natural outcome of his personal character, thus assuring us that he would continue in his work because it is a part of him. For instance, the fact that his grandmother hit a glass ceiling in the banking business led to his support for the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The struggles they had with student loans encouraged him to reform them. Most important, the general values they hold from their families, from their upbringing, cause them to empathize with others, those they know and those they do not. Thus he seeks to save the auto industry, etc. She concludes,

    "So in the end, for Barack, these issues aren't political – they're personal. Because Barack knows     what it means when a family struggles. He knows what it means to want something more for your     kids and grandkids. Barack knows the American Dream because he's lived it...and he wants     everyone in this country to have that same opportunity, no matter who we are, or where we're     from, or what we look like, or who we love. And he believes that when you've worked hard, and     done well, and walked through that doorway of opportunity...you do not slam it shut behind     you...you reach back, and you give other folks the same chances that helped you succeed."

This excerpt represents, I think, the core symbolic task of the genre. The candidate is like you the audience in that he shares these experiences. But he is unlike you the audience in that he can do something about them--he can be the president. The personal must flow into the political; character must make up plot for these speeches to become whole, for them to work. Michelle Obama's speech is an aesthetic and ethical whole because she understands the relationship between person and act.

 

 

Theoreticism and Radical Republicans

On March 8, 1983, President Ronald Reagan spoke before the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida. He denounced the Soviet Union (and much American culture) as "evil." The end of the speech was lost in the furor that followed. He quoted noted atheist, radical, and revolutionary Thomas Paine: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." The then-Burkean (Edmund)pundit George Will denounced the quotation as "that stupendously dumb statement by Thomas Paine." The conservative Will understood the claim's import better than the president: to contend that one could, much less should, begin the world anew flew in the face of continuity, tradition, and religion, qualities conservatives held dear. It smacked of the evil Reagan decried in that Orlando speech: the presumption that one's theory could or should remake a recalcitrant, material, real world filled with people whose lives, histories, and opinions one ought to respect.  

And yet I believe that quotation--and that speech--sounded the true keynote for the 2012 Republican National Convention. I've thought unusually long and hard about the discourse of that convention because it seemed to require a response beyond my typical analysis of the speeches. It--as well as much of what we have heard this campaign season--represents a newly radicalized Republican Party, one that has regretfully lost the valuable core of conservative thought and, instead, learned a lesson the Reagan Presidency didn't truly teach: that abstract theory explains the world, that all problems can be successfully solved through recourse to a uniform principle, that argument from definition is the highest form of public address.

Sustaining virtually every argument made by Republicans of late is a simple theory. It derives from a over-simplified Adam Smith, gains yet more clarity from Ayn Rand, and finally achieves its pure state through the ministry of the economics faculty at the University of Chicago. Republican leaders begin with a definition of man (yes, man), one of a perfectly rational, self interested, advantage seeking, transparent, autonomous individual. Ideally, such individuals interact with other like beings in the free market. An invisible hand guides their bargains; the deals maximize the best results for society because they maximize the best for each individual. This is not a tautology, but a fact. Societies are made up of autonomous individuals; macroeconomics can only be based on microeconomics. What is good for the rational self-seeker is good for the whole.

In this neo-Darwinian competition, there are winners and losers. It is the spur of competition that produces the best results; to interfere is to diminish the purity of the model and thus impede the production of the good. By definition, the best emerge from the competition and success signifies the best; thus, the Republicans have nominated the biggest winner of the Hunger Games, the wealthiest man available to them.

Of course, there is some exaggeration in my portrait, but I am afraid there is very little. Republicans, bless their hearts, have become completely enamored with their theories, with their principles, with the ways in which one word, one answer, one language can solve every problem. Categorical claims abound and experience, tradition, reality, and history are not obstacles. If the theory doesn't conform to the world, make the world conform to the theory. Rape can't make you pregnant; keep government out of my Medicare. 

There are policy implications. If President Reagan did not make the economy work well enough, it can only be due to his failure to implement the model. Cut more taxes, end more regulation, and slash more social spending (which mitigates the effects of the market and thus creates dependence among its beneficiaries). If President George H. W. Bush did not succeed, it can only be due to his failure to implement fully the model. If President George W. Bush failed, it can only be due to his failure to implement fully the model. The model cannot be wrong. If there is a problem, adhere ever more stringently to the model.

In this way, the Republicans have now fully embraced the theoreticism, the fetish for the abstract, that has so long been familiar to me from the academic left. After all, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri propose the same flat world as Milton Friedman and Robert Lucas; they simply value it differently. Left and right meet in their love for the single Word of the World.

Out of all of this emerges a cramped, narrow idea of what it is to be human and what it means to live in community. We are more than what Paul Ryan proposes. For me, as a person of faith, we are Imago Dei, made in the image of God. Each person is at once as wonderful and terrible, as mysterious and multitudinous, as that. We cannot be reduced to a rational, transparent economic animal. Nor can that abstract vision even adequately explain the economics that we do; models are helpful, but only to a point. The great conservative Edmund Burke knew that. The marvelous Stephen Browne wrote of Burke's views: "Abstract theorizing is marked by artifice and impracticality; it is overly rationalistic and hence cannot account for the variety of human experience and collective values." The people of the world do not conform to the people of the theory.

I want more than this out of my life and my president. Those who would lead us should know us, in all of our diverse, funny, tragic, selfish, altruistic, contradictory, complex glory. To be clear, I believe in capitalism, in a mixed market economy that works for all of us. I think that forms an important part of our communal life, but I also believe there is more and I am sad for those who do not. When I hear their paeans to the market, I cannot help but think of the words of Senator Robert Kennedy:

"The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."

Amen.