To imply that politics is always logical or always anything is to be foolishly naive. But some things are logical: In US presidential politics, content matters; style matters a lot—perceptions matter a great deal.
The last two Democratic presidential candidates were exceedingly careful. Both split hairs and massaged their prepared statements and formal comments so much that many a yellow dog Democrats found themselves nearly gagging. Gore and Kerry made so many oh so careful and flat out timid comments that many voters thought that Gore and Kerry were spineless, spiritless, bumbling fools.
Milquetoast Hall of Fame
Every political junkie has his or her lists of favorite rhetorical nonsense. One uttered by Gore way back when he was vice-president belongs in the Milquetoast Hall of Fame. While trying to distance himself from charges concerning campaign fundraising irregularities, Gore said, “And my counsel advises me, let me repeat, that there is no controlling legal authority that says that any of these activities violated any law." As the comment suggests, the phrase “no controlling legal authority” was repeated by Gore during his presentation. Eventually, Gore was cleared of any legal wrongdoing. But his comment about there being ”no controlling legal authority” was such a nasty equivocation that Gore’s awful comments contributed to the image that he was a positioning machine—and therefore not a person with the ability to speak clearly and with some modicum of intelligence.
Worse, he was perceived by many to be a candidate without a spine.
Sadly, bland, overly massaged comments are not limited to presidential campaigns. Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about Bush’s troop surge contain so many switchbacks, rhetorical figure eight’s, and other vacillations that they may deserve a separate room in the Milquetoast Hall of Fame.
It’s easy of course to blame handlers for these gaffes. One of the best political sages in the country, Joe Klein adroitly discusses the role of handlers in recent national political campaigns in Politics Lost. Clearly the handlers don’t want the candidate they work for to make a comment that ruins the candidate’s credibility. Dean’s scream after the 2004 Iowa primary is perhaps the most recent and obvious example of a candidate making one comment that destroys his ethos and sabotages his chances.
Evidence in Klein’s book and simply listening to Gore and Kerry on the campaign trail make a couple things obvious. The motives of the handlers may be sincere and sound, but too much soft-pedaling and carefulspeak turns off many voters.
Gore probably is now kicking himself a couple hundred times a day. If he had shown half the passion and a fraction of the spine very much on display in the documentary, The Inconvenient Truth, he might now be President . . . instead of the man who once was an upstart Texan governor who spoke of compassionate conservatism and provoked many conservatives to dream of sunnier days.
While the skies have darkened and various sharks—and no doubt a lot of other nasty things—are swirling around Bush and his presidency now, most Democrats are surveying the terrain and weighing their options for 2008. Which brings us once again to the current Democratic frontrunner—Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton has great name recognition. But the name carries with it a considerable amount of baggage. One of the heavier bags is similar to one that weighed down Gore and later Kerry. By trying to position herself very adeptly in the middle, Clinton, like Gore and Kerry may overdo it with this positioning thing.
One of the more obvious (and logical) rules of politics is that a candidate who is not the current favorite must distinguish him or herself from the front runner. Which no doubt is one reason why Edwards tossed his hat into the presidential sweepstakes contest so early. Separating himself from Clinton is one reason why he has been trying to recruit young people (with short movies posted in the Internet and a whole slew of other overtures). Distancing himself from Clinton no doubt is one of many reasons why last Sunday Edwards stood behind the podium at Riverside Church in New York City.
It was at Riverside, nearly forty years ago that Dr. King gave a speech that articulated his stance against the US involvement in South Vietnam. Most of King’s comments resonate today.
King’s Speech
King’s speech was logical. Early in the speech King listed the reasons he opposed the war: It would drain resources for campaigns against poverty. Negroes were dying in unreasonably high proportion to whites (which was true at the time of the speech, but not so when US involvement in Vietnam ended); change comes “most meaningfully not via war but through non-violent action.” War damages the very fiber of what is best about America. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize increased his commitment to work for “the brotherhood of man.” It is a natural outgrowth of a Christian minister to follow Christ’s calling to love thy enemies, to increase the feelings of brotherhood amongst peoples, and to strive to end suffering.
King’s speech was provocative. He offered his version of the history of the region and of the student protests against the war. He attacked the arrogance that led Americans to think “that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them.” He condemned many of the forces he thought were essential to continuing the war, “When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” And he called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”
The speech was poetic: “If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam.” “One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway.”
King’s speech was unusually perceptive. Where other commentators who praised or condemned the war relied on reason and rhetoric, King sought a deeper understanding. When he spoke at the Riverside Church, King said, “The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit.” King urged America to “get on the right side of world revolution” and called for a revolution of values, which to him was “our best defense against communism.”
Edwards’ speech pales in comparison. But it is noteworthy.
It did not get extensive media coverage, so significant portions are included here.
Edwards praised King for not directing “his demands to the government of the United States, which was escalating the war.” Edwards praised King for making “a direct appeal to the people of the United States, calling on us to break our own silence, and to take responsibility for bringing about what he called a revolution of values.”
Edwards said:
Escalation is not the answer, and all you have to do is listen to our own generals to know it's not the answer. The answer is for the Iraqi people and others in that part of the world to take responsibility, to take responsibility for their own country. The best way for that to happen is for America to make clear that we are leaving Iraq, and the best way to make clear that we are leaving Iraq is to actually start leaving Iraq.
It's why Congress must step up, now, and stop this President from putting more troops in harm's way.
Silence is betrayal. Speak out, and stop this escalation now.
And I say to all of you—not just members of Congress, all of you who are here today—and the millions like us around the world who know that this is a mistake—your job is to reject the easy way of apathy and to choose instead, to choose the hard path, the path of action.
Silence is betrayal. Speak out.
Our purpose must be to restore America's leadership, moral leadership, in the world. When we speak out about the ongoing genocide in Sudan and Darfur, when we speak out against thousands and thousands of children in Africa being born with AIDS, an entire new generation of children with AIDS--(Why? Because their mother can't pay for a four-dollar dose of medicine.)—the United States of America is better than this. . .. Our people are better than this. When we speak out against human rights abuses in China and other parts of the world, when we speak out, not just about . . . poverty in the United States of America, but poverty across the globe—half of our planet, three billion people, live on two dollars or less a day—the United States of America is better than this.
If anything has been proven over the last few years, it is that raw power alone will not make you a leader. You have to actually have the moral authority to lead.
Our purpose has to be to ignite the revolution of values that Dr. King dreamed about.
You have to take action. You have to take responsibility. That's exactly what Dr. King was talking about 40 years ago from this pulpit. It is not okay to stand idly by. Silence is betrayal.
To solve these problems, we have got to counter apathy with action. We have to replace cynicism with service. We have to stop looking to others, and start looking to ourselves. To solve these problems, we have to break the silence. We need to break the silence about the extraordinarily deep divisions between the haves and the have-nots. We have to break the silence . . . about the millions of our own people who are trying every day just to survive. We need to break the silence about 46-47 million of our own people who are worried sick that if they wake up in the middle of the night with a sick four-year-old, they're going to have to go to the local emergency room and beg for health care. We need to break the silence about our country's addiction to fossil fuels and about the damaging effect that these greenhouse gases are having on God's gift to us, this green Earth.
It is time. In fact, patriotism is about refusing to support something that you know is wrong and having the courage to speak out with strength and passion and backbone for something you know is right.
The world needs to see our better angels.
Separation and a Whole lot More
Edwards’ speech, along with other statements he has made recently, make it apparent that he can speak clearly and logically.
Edwards is trying to make it obvious to the people and to the political elites that he will not make the same mistakes concerning style and carefulspeak that his Democratic predecessors made.
So in a way Edwards is doing what every upstart needs to do, separating himself in terms of content and style from the front runner. Speaking at Riverside also had other delightful sweeteners for Edwards. Because the church is in New York City, it is in the heart of Clinton’s turf. Edwards’ speech shows that he—or his advisors—know something about history—which would have benefited the US and many of its often spineless institutions while President Bush prepared the country to go to war in Iraq.
In a very important way, Edwards is doing much more than putting some distance between himself and Clinton. His stance on the war actually coheres with his policies on poverty, the environment, and foreign policy. Edwards hopes that many will perceive him to be the rarest of all Democratic presidential candidates—one with a backbone.
Clinton’s poll numbers in Iowa are down. Edwards’ numbers are up. Considering the events of last weekend, this should not come as a surprise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.” Charles De Gaulle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment