Rhetoric!

In college I took "The Elements of Rhetoric" with Prof. James Engell. A great course and a fabulous professor.

I am heartened that this presidential election seems to have coincided with a rebirth of at least the idea that public rhetoric in its most basic form -- the persuasive speech -- still matters. Think of Mitt Romney's speech about religion in America and, of course, Obama's speech today.

Comments

Romney's "judge me, not the religion" speech (or any of them really) pale in comparisson to any of Obama's speeches.

Obama refused to simplify or dismiss issues surrounding the racial divide in our country. He implies boldly that what is wrong with our country can be fixed by what is great in our country.

Romney said you can't have freedom without religion. For Romney and other religious conservatives, what should be great about our country (freedom of AND from religion) is what is wrong in our country.

Posted by Mingpicket | March 18, 2008 12:09 PM

"Think of Mitt Romney's speech about religion in America and, of course, Obama's speech today."

There's no comparison. Romney's was hackneyed, a complete misstatement of the history of religion and politics, logically incoherent, and a thinly-veiled attack on nonbelievers. And its lack of eloquence or music was laughable.

Obama's will, or should, go down in our history as a masterful summary of and a visionary looking forward from the original sin at the heart of the American dream, racism.

If you honestly think the two speeches are comparable, then you have no understanding of what makes for good rhetoric, no matter how many Ivy League classes you may have taken on the subject.

Posted by brewmn | March 18, 2008 12:11 PM

Tell us how Engell was a fabulous professor, please. Those who've seen him in close proximity (ie those who work and teach at Harvard) see him as a total pompous prat; a small man.

Posted by HPPUK | March 18, 2008 12:41 PM

Ain't it cute: Marc's swooning.

I don't see Obama's speech as fundamentally an attempt to persuade. John Edwards routinely delivered marvels of persuasive speech-making, but all the cool intellectual types hated them because he aimed at the basic moral instinct that lies in heart, not the head. Oh, he's trying to manipulate me, they said.

Obama speaks ex cathedra. Sure, it's relaxed, but you still don't have the sense that you can argue with the throne. His orations consciously attempt to present his rhetoric as accumulated wisdom. The magic trick is that he doesn't press his conclusion as hard as an Edwards might. Instead, he lets you see right before your minds eye the assimilation of bon pensants. You never actually end-up engaging his conclusions because you're so fascinated by his process of bringing together so many different threads of thought and knowledge. Obama, like a good educator, knows that one of the keys to getting pupils to accept the information and opinions you give them is to make the pathway to that knowledge interesting. The cool intellectuals love his speeches because he doesn't ask them to feel anything and doesn't ask them to commit. As an owner might hand a cat a ball of yarn, Obama's more than willing to let you paw through the threads. Witness Marc's deep textual reading of Obama's speech.

On a personal level, while I'm less inclined to believe that Obama is the Greatest American Orator Ever, I do think that he effectively addressed this issue. He's got a quite stunning personal story of negotiating the landscape of racial identity in America. He's got much to teach us all.

Posted by dry_fish | March 18, 2008 12:43 PM

If a politician today creates a moment that makes you think of a college course you did (excluding economics of course), then that's something.

Posted by pdcs | March 18, 2008 1:42 PM