I hate to bring everything back to politics, but my train of thought originates from presidential debate number three. McCain all but equated eloquence with duplicity. Eloquence was manipulation in disguise. Yet I can’t help but see eloquence as a great quality--one that North American leaders have noticeably lacked in recent years.
For example, shortly after the war in Iraq began I heard George Bush and Tony Blair give their war rationale on the radio. In my opinion, Bush sounded polarizing, reckless and simple minded. On the other hand Blair sounded rational, thoughtful and intelligent. Yet both speeches had similar content and were justifying the same actions. Now I didn't agree with either of them, but at least I could somewhat respect where the latter was coming from. Blair’s eloquence didn't change or manipulate my opinion on the war, but rather than cringe at his words at least I could value his perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That ‘Eloquence’ can pass as an insulting or discrediting accusation seems to be descriptive of two aspects of the contemporary North American political rhetoric. The first aspect is the immediate and transparent accusation that one candidate is an ‘eastern liberal intellectual’, as if that is in some way an insult, and as if John McCain was not raised in Washington D.C. himself. The Canadian analog being western Canada vs. Ontario.
The second aspect is the absence of the language of ideas from political rhetoric - that characteristic which would bestow upon rhetoric the potential to become dialogue. Division is nothing new in politics, but over the past twenty years the language used has become that of budgets and marketing. The transition implies through language that there is a product to be bestowed and received, rather than governance to be shared and participated in, and that only those with a particular background or skill set are worthy of membership in the circles of power, rather than governance through those selected from the ranks of those who select – us.
We are complicit in the unfortunate transition as those who accept, or perhaps submit to, a perspective that defines us as consumers of a product (governance) that is defined for us as choices between one or another package. We are also those who have willingly withdrawn from the dialogue which would serve to mold governance between elections, by accepting that the description of an intermediate step (transfer of money, sometimes dressed in references to cause and effect) or repetition of soundbites is an acceptable substitute for identifying both motive and method in governance.
You bring up a good point--the term intellectual does seem like an insult when it's flung from the mouth of the GOP.
I also like the concept of ideas transforming rhetoric into dialogue. It's good that while the race has been loaded with rhetoric, there has been a huge level of involvement from everyday citizens. Amidst the attacks and promises, people seem to be participating in democracy and engaging in a dialogue on the issues far more than in previous years.
Post a Comment