PLANK SEPTEMBER 7, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
What many feared was correct: Bill Clinton outdid Barack Obama in oratory this week.
Clinton pulled off an interesting feat: making an information-rich convention speech. He resisted the crude, sound-bite rhythm expected of such addresses, holding off much of the applause, almost seeming to despair that the audience’s standing ovation tic might derail the points he was trying to make. And that was just it: He had points, often extended ones, in defense of Obama’s achievements. Here was the speech-as-lecture that was so typical in an earlier day, almost reminiscent of Woodrow Wilson making a detailed case for the League of Nations in high professorial style.
Yet his address felt not the least bit overstuffed or pedantic, nor did it err into the opposite excess, that of chattiness. One of his 1990s speechwriters once said, “There is no one who is more easily articulate in my memory and I can’t remember a thing he said,” but there was much memorable in this speech. Lines such as “We can’t afford to hand the reins to somebody who will double down on trickle down” and “It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did” will stick in minds. But of more lasting importance is that Clinton made the most compelling whiteboard case for re-electing Obama that anyone of note has made—orally or in print.
His Southern accent only helped send the speech over the plate, lending an air of warmth and sincerity that was key in getting him elected 20 years ago. Many assume that a Southern accent signals stupidity, but in our era, vernacular cadences are an aural emollient to American ears. A twang reads “real.” In 2012, he who exhibits a command of facts in the accent of a country-western singer becomes the closest thing we have to a philosopher king.
That’s the way many of us used to feel about the current president. Four years ago, when teaching Plato’s Republic, I noted that Obama came up quite often as a possible example of the almost supernaturally wise kind of ruler Socrates described. Yet Obama has not been the communicator we expected. Why, for example, has he not himself been more inclined to make extended cases against the Republicans, rather than throw potshots while avoiding using his rivals’ names?
“Defensive,” many would call it, such that many are saying that Clinton did for Obama what the president could not have. And Obama has, in fact, gotten down to specifics to a certain extent in his speeches over the past year or so. But one cannot imagine him taking it to the level Clinton did. “Think about this…” Clinton often said before launching into a disquisition. Obama is less inclined to that mode—does he think it would sound too teacherly or condescending?
He should rethink. He’s older now, for one, no longer the “skinny kid with the funny name.” He ventured at one point that being American is to cherish not only rights but responsibilities—but followed it up with gauzy scenarios, speechifying, rather than taking the occasion to highlight the value of this notion of the social contract and how America began as a unique opportunity to put that idea to the test—an opportunity the Republicans are besmirching in the name of being more “American” than he is. It could have been grand.
Not that Obama didn’t address the “un-American” graffito that the Tampa event scrawled upon him. Heralding a return to an America all about “products stamped with ‘the three letters USA,’” emphasizing a strong military, charging that the Romney/Ryan philosophy is "not who we are," he made all further claims that his approach to governance is somehow foreign and unpatriotic automatically qualify as nonsense. Dinesh D’Souza looks all the more a crank as of tonight.
Yet what we now know as the “Obama style” has never seemed so un-arousing. The future that looked so stirring from the vantage point of the Grant Park speech turned out to be driven to a dismaying degree by the likes of decidedly unstirred personages such as Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.
His final passage, packing in journey, path, road and travel, followed by “pull each other up” and “eyes fixed on” was lovely in itself. It moved, in the physical and emotional senses of the word; the bit about the eyes evokes eyes on a certain prize, especially one on a mountaintop, and specifically one that a certain prophet named King told us that he saw, although he might not get there with us.
When it’s all over, we’ll either have a President Romney or a second Obama administration hobbled by people like Paul Ryan. And for those undecided voters who were truly seeking to be swayed, I suspect that Mr. Clinton was the one who made up their minds.
18 comments
If having Clinton take the lead on the case for Obama does the job, then all the political credit goes to Obama and his people for orchestrating the show. I like Scheiber's peace about how Obama managed to thread the needle. He had by far the tougher task (although it would have been much easier had Obama shouldered his political, rhetorical, and partisan responsibilities over the last four years rather than believing he had messianic powers to woo Republicans).
- roidubouloi
September 7, 2012 at 2:33am
Good god: "I like Scheiber's piece . . . "
- roidubouloi
September 7, 2012 at 2:34am
"I suspect that Mr. Clinton was the one who made up their minds." Whatever gets you to the church on time.
- miceelf
September 7, 2012 at 6:15am
"Many asume a Southern accent signal stupidity". I would say only bigoted Yankees assume that. I would also say you should use correct verb tense when calling others stupid, especially when you are a journalist, n'est pas?
- smabry03
September 7, 2012 at 7:02am
Maybe we could examine the works of James Agee, Tennessee Williams, Flannery O'Connor, Harper Lee, and William Faulkner, to name a few, to see if your overtly bigoted statement about a Southern accent holds any water.......... Signed a stupid Southern girl, y'all.
- smabry03
September 7, 2012 at 7:12am
I agree with the post's perspective because I think an overwhelming empirical economic argument can be made that lower top rates will not strengthen the economy (e.g. 25% (down from 70%) rate for 5 years going into the Depression and a 35% rate for 8 years going into the Bush Crash) and I feel that until the President makes that argument in a compelling way, it is like he is shooting a water pistol at a brick wall.
- Nusholtz
September 7, 2012 at 8:24am
...Yet Obama has been the communicator we expected... Isn't, in context, a "not" missing here?
- basman
September 7, 2012 at 9:33am
I'll disagree with McWhorter on this one, though I usually agree with his views. Clinton only blossomed as a speaker after he left office, when he could muster up more condescension for the opposition and aw-shucks astonishment at their policies than would have been appropriate for a sitting President. His attempts at lofty rhetoric always felt strained and his slogans were bad marketing mottos. As an ex-President, he doesn't have to inspire--he can explain, make fun, and maintain a useful distance from events. That's what makes his explanations so powerful--they sound like they're coming from a wise, funny, and almost impartial observer. Obama has the burden of having to speak as a leader---more serious, more involved (not with the distance of the teacher or professor), and more inspiring. The constraints on the two men are entirely different.
- polcereal
September 7, 2012 at 11:05am
smabry, there's a difference between someone just describing/referencing an attitude or position and someone actually endorsing that attitude or position. McWhorter is quite correct in his remark, in this particular context at least. Until Jimmy Carter, for around a century since the Civil War, no president came from the South (Wilson was an exception but he didn't sound that way) and the accent was seen as a political disadvantage on the national stage.
- ironyroad
September 7, 2012 at 11:21am
Good read. My dad was from OK, and explained long ago to never underestimate something with a southern accent. If you aren't from the south, it's very easy to do. Those on the coasts will jab at a southern accent at the slightest provocation. Irony, LBJ?
- seattleeng
September 7, 2012 at 12:34pm
That's true, but in some ways he's an exception too: (a) Texas isn't the South in a conventional sense, (b) LBJ was a VP who gained the presidency by way of a sudden crisis (assassination of the incumbent) and (c) he'd been in Washington for so long anyway.
- ironyroad
September 7, 2012 at 12:39pm
Oh come ON you guys. What is up with the pundits? I guess in many ways you live in a different world from the rest of us. I for one appreciate the many wise words written here, the careful analysis of people like Paul Ryan, what's in the ACA, the Republican "budget," so forth - but why oh why is this great convention being covered like it was a catastrophe? It sounds snobbish if you must know. We get PLENTY of that from the Republicans.
- Sophia
September 7, 2012 at 1:05pm
Also: history has been replete with brilliant orators and quite a few of them have been ruthless dictators and demagogues. I'm glad we have a President who talks to us like we're grownups. That's plenty inspiring.
- Sophia
September 7, 2012 at 1:08pm
"I would also say you should use correct verb tense when calling others stupid, especially when you are a journalist, n'est pas?" Should be "n'est-ce pas"
- noga1
September 7, 2012 at 4:10pm
...A twang reads “real.” In 2012, he who exhibits a command of facts in the accent of a country-western singer becomes the closest thing we have to a philosopher king... Not for nothing did Clinton two mights ago refer to himself as a "country boy from Arkansas" taking down the fancy pants on the basis of one word, "arithmetic."
- basman
September 7, 2012 at 5:41pm
Should be "n'est-ce pas" Richtig.
- ironyroad
September 7, 2012 at 7:15pm
Should be reichstag.
- basman
September 7, 2012 at 8:25pm
"Clinton vs. Obama: A Rhetorical Analysis" Why is Obama running against Clinton?
- arnon1
September 7, 2012 at 10:21pm