First, I am a retired public speaker. I think I understand the elements of a good speech. Certainly, I have a professional perspective on the subject. So, for what it is worth, here is my opinion as to the effectiveness and content of last night's presentation.
After listening to, yet, another speech by Mr. Obama, I have concluded that he simply does not have the ability to inspire as a matter of course. Let me explain.
There are, at least, three rhetorical avenues open to a speaker when it comes to inspiring speech. One is the giving of a speech that is emotional, heartfelt and spontaneous; a second is by wrote, contrived and wholly dependent upon finding the right words, the right phrase, the right slogan and, a third memorable-speech type comes from the ability to mirror the concerns, fears and hopes of the audience.
After several years of listening to Obama at center stage, it is my opinion that Obama is not capable of a heart felt speech. That is not to say that he cannot experience emotion. I am only saying that he does not involve the audience in his emotion. Lectures, scoldings, challenging the opposition, berating those who might disagree and threats are not rhetorical elements of a speech that inspires the listener to positive action.
As to the slogan-type speech ("ask not what your country can do for you . . . .) , a certain degree of natural born profundity is required to participate in this arena thought. Whether JFK came up with our example or one of his speech writers, the fact remains that someone in his company was capable of the profound. While criticism is expected, I can honestly say that I have heard nothing from Obama that even remotely borders on the "profound." Understand that "politics" is hardly the venue suited for profundity. Politics is much more about action than anything else. Rhetorically, that fact works against any politician. If the elected representative cannot get things done, however, then his ability to talk becomes more important to his elective survival than it really should be. And, if he has no "profound" inclinations, well, he cannot survive with a constituency that demands thoughtful performance.
What do I mean by "profound." It is more than the expression of an unfamiliar phrase or a well worded paragraph of thought. No, the profound is much more than this. It is a statement that transcends, that moves us from where we are to where we might want to be. The profound is not always "right" but, it always causes thoughtful pause. It always brings us to a decision that challenges a certain intellectual status quo. It always results in a deepening awareness of who we are, as persons, and what we might be. That is never a part of an Obama speech. He does make an effort at the "slogan," but it just does not work for him. Obama lives in my memory bank solely because of the threat he is to all I want for this nation. That is the very opposite of "profundity."
Remember his Greek pillars? I do. Remember his German speech (" . . . now is the time when the earth begins to cool and the oceans recede . . ") or his Cairo speech to the Muslim world. Yes, of course, many of us do. These were all efforts for profundity. These were all rhetorical occasions Obama had hoped would be remembered because of their innate uniqueness. Instead, the world has forgotten and he is no longer working for the repeat of such occasions.
In the "beginning" of Obama, the Man was popular because he could tap into the hopes and concerns of those who listened. He was a Black man who spoke to the failings of a rich society as relates to its poor and disenfranchised. In the end, however, it turns out that he came to us out of privilege. He was not "black" so much as he was "half white." He was not the product of the "hood" and poverty at any level was not a driving, personal, influence. He had never personally experienced racism. He had never participated in the Black civil rights movement; no marches, no glowing speeches, no close partnerships with any of Black national leadership. And more than any other circumstance, his promises have remained unfulfilled. When you stop to think about it, it was his ability to frame a societal promise that brought him to prominence. Ironically, it is his failure in this regard that is bringing him down. There are other issues, of course, but his failure to perform is the primary cause of our collective disappointment.
The speech last night was completely devoid of anything that engenders greatness. Think about this: anyone could have given or written that speech, anyone. Understand that in a practical sense of the word, if anyone can do what you do, in time, "anyone" will. In effect, Obama is "replaceable" by personal edict !!
And when we tie incompetence to an unacceptable or unpopular world view, well, that is the formula for failure.
Before this is all over, I believe that Obama will be viewed by members of his own party and the worst thing that could have happened to the progressive movement in this country. "Good for him," I say.
No comments:
Post a Comment