(Untitled)

[shreena]

I thought this was an intriguing comment piece.  I totally disagree with it, though, and will try to explain why.

I’ve never really been a huge fan of rhetoric - in the sense of long uninterrupted speeches. Being a classicist, I’ve read plenty of what is considered to be superb rhetoric (in the original languages) so I don’t think my dislike of it

Comments

[glamwhorebunni]

Rhetoric encourages the cult of personality. I want a politician who thinks through his policies and makes good decisions, not one who speaks well.

"When I read or listen to long rhetorical American speeches, I constantly want to ask questions, I’m basically always waiting for John Humphreys to interrupt and make the politician address some of the difficulties with their argument."

Precisely.

[midnightmelody]

*entirely agrees

[thalassius]

There were two people in my Arch studio who'd majored in non-linear discourse analysis of dialetical hegemonic post-hierarchical propagandistic nexalities Rhetoric. All they seemed to have learned was an inability to write proper English. They spoke postmodernist, though, so they got on very well in the Department.

[biascut]

I always think it's one of those things where if a politician you agree with does it, it's magnificent rhetoric, and if a politician you don't agree with does it, it's weasel-words and spin.

ETA: Also! There is a particular type of American news article written by someone trained in American rhetoric, which drives me barmy, because it's all PORTENTOUS STATEMENTS, and short, impactful sentences and new paragraphs and oh, I find it exhausting to read. This was a perfect example.

[robert_jones]

If a politician you agree with does it, it's magnificent rhetoric, and if a politician you don't agree with does it, it's weasel-words and spin.

I agree with this. It also leads, I think, to the thing where you hear or read someone propounding a view you agree with, and think they are enormously persuasive, so you show it to all your sceptical friends and they say, "Nah, that's a load of cobblers."

[srk1]

You seem to be switching between an argument that you don't like rhetoric per se and that you don't like rhetoric from the mouths of politicians, because you'd prefer to hear policy detail. That's reasonable but how far would you extend it? Can you see the value in, for example, the speeches of Martin Luther King, who was a political activist and someone who sought to influence public policy, if not a 'politician' in the sense of someone looking to be elected.

[shreena]

Yes, that's a fair point. Essentially, I'm not a huge fan of it in general but I don't dislike it anywhere near as much in the contexts of weddings/funerals, etc, where I can at least understand why you would use it

[srk1]

That's true, although I also think Obama is a very good orator, and his best speeches can transcend the context in which they are being made. I know the "Yes we can" thing got worn into the ground somewhat but when I first heard it, it did sound like a genuinely inspiring message of defiance - something I would locate in the MLK tradition rather than the grubbier world of electoral politics. Also, what is notable in particular about Obama is that a lot of his speeches were directed towards his activists, rather than his voters - they were usually rounded off with an appeal to knock on doors, or make phone calls, or in some other way support his campaign. In that sense he was speaking as a leader of a movement, to that movement, rather than as a politician speaking to the public at large. His rhetoric had a place there as it was a means of energising his movement.

[shreena]

I realise that I'm in the minority but I think I could actually use tapes of Obama's speeches as a sleep aid. I find them incredibly repetitive and the things that he repeats are the most vacuous things in the speech. They are also, for me, just far too long.

[robert_jones]

I think there's room for both though. Your policy needs to be robust enough to survive sceptical examination (personified in John Humphreys), but from time to time you also need to stand back and see the wood rather than the trees. Your policy needs (or at least ought) to stem from your perception of the gap between how the world is and how it should be, and you need to explain that to your supporters (or potential supporters). I think that's where rhetoric comes in.

[srk1]

I'd agree with that. I also think that the value of rhetoric from politicians is somewhat context-dependent. It's irritating to hear rhetoric in the Queen's Speech, but not so much at the Labour Party Conference. The former genuinely should be a dispassionate record of the legislative agenda, whereas the latter is a politician seeking to inspire his supporters.