A Thinking Man's Speech
March 21, 2008

I thought Barack Obama's speech was strong, thoughtful and important. Rather beautifully, it was a speech to think to, not clap to. It was clear that's what he wanted, and this is rare.

It seemed to me as honest a speech as one in his position could give within the limits imposed by politics. As such it was a contribution. We'll see if it was a success. The blowhard guild, proud member since 2000, praised it, and, in the biggest compliment, cable news shows came out of the speech not with jokes or jaded insiderism, but with thought. They started talking, pundits left and right, black and white, about what they'd experienced of race in America. It was kind of wonderful. I thought, Go, America, go, go.


You know what Mr. Obama said. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright was wrong. His sermons were "incendiary," and they "denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation." Mr. Obama admitted that if all he knew of Mr. Wright were what he saw on the "endless loop . . . of YouTube," he wouldn't like him either. But he's known him 20 years as a man who taught him Christian faith, helped the poor, served as a Marine, and leads a community helping the homeless, needy and sick. "As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me." He would not renounce their friendship.

Most significantly, Mr. Obama asserted that race in America has become a generational story. The original sin of slavery is a fact, but the progress we have lived through the past 50 years means each generation experiences race differently. Older blacks, like Mr. Wright, remember Jim Crow and were left misshapen by it. Some rose anyway, some did not; of the latter, a "legacy of defeat" went on to misshape another generation. The result: destructive anger that is at times "exploited by politicians" and that can keep African-Americans "from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition." But "a similar anger exists within segments of the white community." He speaks of working- and middle-class whites whose "experience is the immigrant experience," who started with nothing. "As far as they're concerned, no one handed them anything, they've built it from scratch." "So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town," when they hear of someone receiving preferences they never received, and "when they're told their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced," they feel anger too.

This is all, simply, true. And we are not used to political figures being frank, in this way, in public. For this Mr. Obama deserves deep credit. It is also true the particular whites Obama chose to paint -- ethnic, middle class -- are precisely the voters he needs to draw in Pennsylvania. It was strategically clever. But as one who witnessed busing in Boston first hand, and whose memories of those days can still bring tears, I was glad for his admission that busing was experienced as an injustice by the white working class. Next step: admitting it was an injustice, period.

* * *

The primary rhetorical virtue of the speech can be found in two words, endemic and Faulkner. Endemic is the kind of word political consultants don't let politicians use because 72% of Americans don't understand it. This lowest-common-denominator thinking, based on dizzy polling, has long degraded American discourse. When Obama said Mr. Wright wrongly encouraged "a view that sees white racism as endemic," everyone understood. Because they're not, actually, stupid. As for Faulkner -- well, this was an American politician quoting William Faulkner: "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." This is a thought, an interesting one, which means most current politicians would never share it.

The speech assumed the audience was intelligent. This was a compliment, and I suspect was received as a gift. It also assumed many in the audience were educated. I was grateful for this, as the educated are not much addressed in American politics.

Here I point out an aspect of the speech that may have a beneficial impact on current rhetoric. It is assumed now that a candidate must say a silly, boring line -- "And families in Michigan matter!" or "What I stand for is affordable quality health care!" -- and the audience will clap. The line and the applause make, together, the eight-second soundbite that will be used tonight on the news, and seen by the people. This has been standard politico-journalistic procedure for 20 years.

Mr. Obama subverted this in his speech. He didn't have applause lines. He didn't give you eight seconds of a line followed by clapping. He spoke in full and longish paragraphs that didn't summon applause. This left TV producers having to use longer-than-usual soundbites in order to capture his meaning. And so the cuts of the speech you heard on the news were more substantial and interesting than usual, which made the coverage of the speech better. People who didn't hear it but only saw parts on the news got a real sense of what he'd said.

If Hillary or John McCain said something interesting, they'd get more than an eight-second cut too. But it works only if you don't write an applause-line speech. It works only if you write a thinking speech.

They should try it.

* * *

Here's what didn't work. Near the end of the speech, Mr. Obama painted an America that didn't summon thoughts of Faulkner but of William Blake. The bankruptcies, the dark satanic mills, the job loss and corporate corruptions. There is of course some truth in his portrait, but why do appeals to the Democratic base have to be so unrelievedly, so unrealistically, bleak?

This connected in my mind to the persistent feeling one has -- the fear one has, actually -- that the Obamas, he and she, may not actually know all that much about America. They are bright, accomplished, decent, they know all about the yuppie experience, the buppie experience, Ivy League ways, networking. But they bring along with all this -- perhaps defensively, to keep their ideological views from being refuted by the evidence of their own lives, or so as not to be embarrassed about how nice fame, success, and power are -- habitual reversions to how tough it is to be in America, and to be black in America, and how everyone since the Reagan days has been dying of nothing to eat, and of exploding untreated diseases. America is always coming to them on crutches.

But most people didn't experience the past 25 years that way. Because it wasn't that way. Do the Obamas know it?

This is a lot of baggage to bring into the Executive Mansion.

Still, it was a good speech, and a serious one. I don't know if it will help him. We're in uncharted territory. We've never had a major-party presidential front-runner who is black, or rather black and white, who has given such an address. We don't know if more voters will be alienated by Mr. Wright than will be impressed by the speech about Mr. Wright. We don't know if voters will welcome a meditation on race. My sense: The speech will be labeled by history as the speech that saved a candidacy or the speech that helped do it in. I hope the former.

maybe a bit off topic, but this sticks like a thorn in my side every time corporate corruption is what is destroying this country.

was this country built by farmers? they provided the nourishment, sure.

is that PC made by an aborigine?

what about those drugs to prevent blood clots?

the tools used by doctors to save your life?


this country was built by those that are being demonized. i do not refute the level of corruption in the corporate world (for I am a low man on the totem pole), but if one, a politician in particular, chooses to address corruption in the private sector, why has it not been expanded to the broader bush of corruption, i.e. the system in which he/she is trying to become the "CEO". Perhaps corporations wouldn't have it so easy if the politicians weren't talking lobby money and other bribes to pass legislation making it easier for corruption to exist.

maybe no one told him to not bite the hand that feeds you.

Normally Peggy makes me wince, but that one isn't bad.

But it is a bit comical having someone wonder if Obama knows enough about America having spent much (but not all) of the last ten years singing the praises of the common touch of a wealthy aristocrat and son of a US president.

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
But it is a bit comical having someone wonder if Obama knows enough about America having spent much (but not all) of the last ten years singing the praises of the common touch of a wealthy aristocrat and son of a US president.

Her argument that he doesnt understand America is based on how he describes it, do you disagree with that part? The discussion of his background is speculation as to the cause of his misunderstanding.

Not really. Actually, you listen to Obama's speeches and they're uncharacteristaclly upbeat about America, at least for a Democrat. That's been part of his appeal.

But anyone looking to connect with that struggling voter is going to stress the difficulties, because that's what those voters are feeling.

And much of what she's saying is exagerrated for effect -- "everyone since the Reagan days has been dying of nothing to eat."

So no, not really. One wonders how Republicans think the troubles and struggles of working class Americans should be addressed. In Peggy's own case, of course, it was always with glowing rhetoric about our national greatness and promise.

In other words, not at all.

quote:

In other words, not at all.

I prefer "not at all" (although that isnt how I would describe her perscription) to pointing to corporations making decisions "for nothing more than a profit" as the problem.

quote:

So no, not really. One wonders how Republicans think the troubles and struggles of working class Americans should be addressed.

Tell me how much better the quality of life is right now for working class Americans than it was 80 years ago. Then tell me what % of that improvement you would attribute to government intervention. Then subtract that number from 100%. The remainder is primarily how most Republicans think the "troubles and struggles" are best addressed.

Comical.

Honestly, is this what you really think? All these kids need is a little tough love and wisdom? If they only heard it, they'd be fine?

Oh, man. That's rich. If we wanted a nice example of how disconnected white America is from the problems of inner city America, look no further.

Perhaps you could set some of these to music and we can send you into Cabrini-Green with your guitar.

Tupa, let's do better than that. Let's get somewhere between "corporations are evil" (leftist nonsense) and "corporations are entirely benevolent" (conservative nonsense).

Haha. Yep. Just a big attitude adjustment. All they need. No policy changes. No investments. Just a good ol' fashioned lecture.

I don't mean to be hard on you. But it's just sort of daft. And very, very white.

Honestly, how many times have we seen some version of this "bootstraps" speech on this board? It's all you guys do: quit whining, work harder.

And yet none of you seem to be able to tell me where you'd be if you grew up in that environment. Do you think you'd be singing upbeat songs about the bay? I mean, unless someone had given you the responsibility lecture and it changed your life forever.

And do you imagine that they haven't heard this lecture before? Why would that place, and the dozens of others like it around the country, still be in such disarray and its citizens so economically marginalized if your lecture is all they need to achieve just like you and me?

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
Tupa, let's do better than that. Let's get somewhere between "corporations are evil" (leftist nonsense) and "corporations are entirely benevolent" (conservative nonsense).

You'll have a hard time finding a single serious Republican that thinks corporations are benevolant. In fact, many will tell you that a benevolent corporation is one that wont be around long. But the facts remain, the VAST majority of improvements in the lives of every class of American have been the result of something other than government intervention. Am I wrong?

Let's do ALOT better. Let's get past "Dems want to help working class Americans and Republicans dont" (all around nonsense).

In my experience, Steve's view is pretty standard for the base of the Republican party, and even some of the Democratic party. And that amounts to some vague platitudes about working harder and to quit whining.

But here's the interesting part: they don't actually oppose many social policies aimed at targeting the inner city poor when asked about them specifically -- things like Head Start, job training programs, etc. -- but they also blame "liberal social programs" for creating the mess. That's the disconnect that I'm trying to get at.

Obama referenced this attitude in his speech. It's not wrong so much as provincial.

Steve, who has a heart underneath all that cynicism, even mentioned it: take the help if it's there. So he's for providing some help. And at the same time against "liberal social programs."

No one in their right mind would suggest that educational quality is the same, environmental quality is the same, that both places are equally safe, that the job opportunities are similar. And yet they think the prescriptions are exactly the same: do what I did. Study hard, work hard, and you'll be fine in America.

We need to do more than offer words of advice, don't we?

Another great example of this are unions. Ask middle or working class Republicans and Democrats if they think workers should have a place at the table with management, and be able to bargain for their interests as well as the interests of management. Overwhelmingly people say this is a good thing.

You ask them what they think of unions, and they turn overwhelmingly negative.

The disconnect is fascinating.

Okay, now I'm screwed again. Be back later.

quote:

Another great example of this are unions. Ask middle or working class Republicans and Democrats if they think workers should have a place at the table with management, and be able to bargain for their interests as well as the interests of management. Overwhelmingly people say this is a good thing.

You ask them what they think of unions, and they turn overwhelmingly negative.

The disconnect is fascinating.

That's why we have a republic rather than a democracy. I love the line from the West Wing, "A person is smart, people are stupid". Everyone wants to balance the budget, no one wants to cut funding or raise taxes. Everyone wants to pay teachers more, no one wants to increase school budgets. It applies to everything.

(But I think your union example is the easiest to explain. There is a big difference between what people think of as "have a place at the table with management" and what unions have become.)

Why don't you try arguing with the stuff I talk about, rather than the stuff you make up in your head?

You're really going off the rails here, my man.

quote:

In my experience, Steve's view is pretty standard for the base of the Republican party, and even some of the Democratic party. And that amounts to some vague platitudes about working harder and to quit whining.

But here's the interesting part: they don't actually oppose many social policies aimed at targeting the inner city poor when asked about them specifically -- things like Head Start, job training programs, etc. -- but they also blame "liberal social programs" for creating the mess. That's the disconnect that I'm trying to get at.

That's what you were talking about when you characterized Peggy Noonan's idea of how to address the problems as "not at all"?