|
| |
REYNOLDS |
|
 |
Not Much Corn to Send: Politics Without Policy
by John Mark Reynolds [author,
academic] 4/18/08
An articulate disagreement with your political ideas still disagrees with your principles, even if entertaining to hear.
A great danger of successful political rhetoric is confusing skill
in expression with the ideas being expressed. Any communicator should
fear the danger of substituting polish for content. He or she should
read constantly and engage in the examination of core principles as
often as possible to escape mental stagnation.
This danger is much on my mind for three reasons. First, as a
communicator I am constantly trying to replenish my stock of ideas to
avoid it. Second, two great writers I am reading at present warn of
rhetoric replacing reality . . . both of them more skillful
communicators than I shall ever be: Shakespeare and Trollope. Finally,
since communicating has become so easy to us, there is an even greater
premium on facility of communication.
Contributor
John Mark Reynolds
John
Mark Reynolds is the founder and director of
the Torrey Honors Institute and Associate Professor
of Philosophy at Biola University.His
personal website can be found at www.johnmarkreynolds.com and
his blog can be found at http://scriptoriumdaily.com.
[go to Reynolds index] |
When anybody can have their say, somebody who says things really
well can cut through the clutter with even greater force. If everybody
tried playing basketball every week, they would have an even greater
appreciation of the skill and sheer talent of a really fine player.With
a constant opportunity to express our opinions, a great communicator is
even more greatly appreciated.
Fashions change in politics rhetoric, but humanity does not. One of
the gifts of the particular kind of genius that belongs to the great
writer is the ability to discover that unchanging core. Since genius is
rare, the rest of us must work hard to find the wise men and women of
each age and try to learn what they have observed about us.
I have discovered more wisdom about contemporary politics in Shakespeare’s history plays (such as Richard II)
than in the New York Times editorial page . . . ever. A danger of the
very effective education United States culture gives our best students
in vocational subjects is that we will be ineffective in pointing them
toward this enduring wisdom.
Since it comes wrapped in the diction and popular manner of
expression of another era is not, for most students, as immediately
entertaining or as relevant. One goal for all the writers of this site
has been to try to point to some of the wisdom we have found by reading
this great authors.
In his magnificent conclusion to his parliamentary series, Anthony Trollope describes the man of rhetoric well:
Sir Timothy was a fluent speaker, and when there was
nothing to be said was possessed of a great plenty of words. And he was
gifted with that peculiar power which enables a man to have the last
word in every encounter,—a power which we are apt to call repartee,
which is in truth the readiness which come from continual practice. You
shall meet two men of whom you shall know the one to be endowed with
the brilliancy of true genius, and the other to be possessed of but
moderate parts, and shall find the former never able to hold his awn
against the latter. In a debate, the man of moderate parts will seem to
be greater than the man of genius. But this skill of tongue, this
glibness of speech is hardly an affair of intellect at all. It is—as is
style to the writer,—not the wares which he has to take to market, but
the vehicle in which they may be carried. Of what avail to you is it to
have filled granaries with corn if you cannot get your corn to the
consumer? Now Sir Timothy was a great vehicle, but he had not in truth
much corn to send. He could turn a laugh against an adversary;—no man
better.
Television has made the situation, if anything, worse. Glib writers
can hand attractive people scripts to read via a teleprompter that give
the appearance of superficiality without the skill. The writers
themselves are usually only glib . . . good at getting the corn to
market without much corn. . . but now the person we watch is not even
superficially talented. Too often he or she is only good at appearing
to be glib . . . so shallow that shallowness appears deep.
I once watched some of the talking head newsreaders at FOX attempt
unscripted banter. It was not just inarticulate and shallow, but
utterly unlike the way they sound the minute the script begins again.
They were, male and female, created by writers . . . they had no corn
themselves and no skill in carrying corn . . . but they looked,
evidently, like people we might enjoy watching carry corn if they had
some and could do so.
They were good at faking faking it.
Fortunately, all three presidential candidates are more substantial.
Both McCain and Clinton are in no danger of rhetorical skill
overwhelming their message. Senator Obama is a man of substance with
great skill. There is no Sir Timothy in this bunch.
However, there is a danger that Senator Obama’s skill with words
combined with substance will strike us as so rare that we will overlook
the substance. In an age when a newsreader who actually reports the
news can seem an intellectual giant, a politician who writes his own
speeches, reads his own books, and has thoughts and can express them
competently may overwhelm our common sense.
Senator Obama is a conventional, even fairly radical, liberal. If
that is your political fancy, then he is an excellent candidate.
However, if you believe in the culture of life, if you support historic
American ideas about the family, then his ideas are bad. Senator Obama
has cultivated the ability of saying what he disagrees with so well,
that you forget he is attacking your view.
His power in articulating a pro-life position in order to gently
disagree with it is of little comfort to infants who suffer the partial
birth abortion he would make legal.
So if Senator Obama is no Sir Timothy, not just the reader of a
teleprompter, we run the risk of so valuing the skills of a Sir Timothy
that we forget his ideas. That is to devalue what is most interesting,
and from my perspective most dangerous, about Senator Obama.
All of us are impressed with the messenger, now what of the message?
All of are impressed with the general message (change! hope!
unity!), but must we ignore the devils in the details (socialized
medicine, foreign policy incoherence)?
If one is a liberal, then it makes sense to vote for Senator Obama .
. . or Senator Clinton. My worry, such as it is, is addressed to those
willing to overlook the mildew on the corn, much of it brought of
Carter era storage, for the brand new wagon in which it is being hauled.
In the end, we will have to eat the corn, not the wagon. . . be
governed by the policies and not the rhetoric. Of course, all things
being equal, we would get good policy and good delivery, but sadly an
Abraham Lincoln, a Theodore Roosevelt, or a Ronald Reagan is rare. In
most cases, we must be satisfied with a man of substance and feel
blessed one is available! ExileStreet
copyright
2008 John Mark Reynolds
§
|
q