March 04, 2008
Obama Bests Clinton At Craft of Writing
Adam Kirsch in the New York Sun:
When Democratic primary voters go to the polls tomorrow in Ohio and Texas, it's a safe bet that few will be casting their votes based on senators Clinton's and Obama's merits as writers. To judge a candidate based on his or her literary ability would be as irrelevant, most people agree, as voting for the better ballroom dancer. It may be a nice talent to have, but it has nothing to do with being president. It even seems a little naïve to judge a politician as the author of a book bearing his or her name. Today, just about every candidate with national ambitions feels the need to publish a book — a memoir, a polemic, a 10-point program — but such books are not really written; they are issued, such as press releases or position papers. A senator is no more the author of his books than of his bills. In both cases, he just accepts responsibility for a document drafted by a team of experts.
Against this cynicism, however, stands the fact that the greatest statesmen — the ones who occupy the most cherished places in our historical memory — are the ones who were great writers. President Lincoln and Prime Minister Churchill, to take the most familiar examples, occupy a higher plane than the average president or prime minister, partly because of the events they participated in, but also because of the way they interpreted those events in their speeches and writings. Politics and language, they proved, do not have to be sullen strangers — or sworn enemies, as they are in the realm of propaganda that George Orwell wrote about. On the contrary, reading Lincoln's second inaugural or Churchill's 1940 speeches, it becomes clear that the political and the literary converge at the highest levels. In both fields, the ability to imagine and to communicate what you imagine is essential; and both of those tasks depend entirely on language. As long as politics is an expression of human creativity, not just a matter of administering populations, there will be a profound connection between language and leadership.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 02:32 AM | Permalink























Comments
Obama is a stateman, while Hillary is a homespun self-appointed "intellectual" of sorts.
But, not to worry. The verbe is not a required to occupy the White House, just indebtedness to special groups and unbridled ambition.
Those proven assets are uniquely Hillary and Bill's.
Bush, judged by those standards, qualifies as a moron...
Let's not forget, today is the TUESDAY that matters most!
God Bless America...
Posted by: Felix E. F. Larocca MD | Mar 4, 2008 2:59:29 AM
...what Mr. Obama counts on to transcend party divisions is the force of his own personality — his sheer insistence on being himself.
And why not?
Is it really his fault that the nuts and bolts of his policies are not communicated well by a charisma-focused press?
But beyond all that, I think this article touches on something that is sorely bankrupt with the current administration: statesmanship/diplomacy.
If you recall, the Bush administration gave very rare press conferences during the first 6 years or so. They were, and still are to a certain degree, holed up in their little paranoid bunker - seemingly separate from the world and even their own country.
Their policy of non-communication is the majority of the reason why much of the world is pissed at us.
Reagan, the 'great communicator', wasn't a political genius, but at least by staying in touch with the people and the world he was able to accomplish great things.
Can anyone be the exact polar opposite of Bush other than Obama?
I guess my question is: are being genuine and open traits that should define a president?
I say yes.
Posted by: beajerry | Mar 4, 2008 9:38:47 AM
Post a comment