I didn't watch the State of the Union address. I don't have television (okay, I do have a TV, but it's only set-up for DVDs and Wii) and I was busy with something else. But I did read the transcript later that evening, as well as the transcript of Bobby Jindal's Republican response. I thought both speeches were well-written and made good presentations about the direction each side would like to take our country, and how, especially with regard to the economy. Both were inspiring in different ways.
So I was caught off guard the next morning by speech reactions. The buzz wasn’t about Obama’s agenda; it was about Jindal’s style. It seemed everyone was put off by his awkward delivery and doubted the legitimacy of the man considered to be a likely candidate for President in 2012. Huh. Really? Americans would dismiss someone that easily because of “style?”
I think we’ve been watching too much American Idol. We really love to critique style and performance, don’t we? But how much does that matter in terms of one’s ability to govern? I think of all the presidents before the age of radio and television. How few citizens must have heard or seen their style—what the people knew, they read—and yet this country elected many great leaders.
On the other hand, Obama has style in spades. He is tremendously talented—perhaps the best speaking politician of my lifetime. I’m convinced the guy could sell anyone on anything. But this doesn’t automatically makes him a great leader. If anything, he makes it harder to spot the B.S.
Did you watch the speeches? Did style factor into your reaction? If so, how much?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think we only need to look at the 1960 election debate between John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon to see how style affects the electorate. Those who saw the debate on TV tended to think that JFK won, while those who listened on the radio tended to think that Nixon won. While this is an example of a different sort of style, visual as opposed to verbal, I think it shows that this generation is the only superficial one in American history.
i didn't watch it either, so i won't claim to be an authority, but judging by the clips i saw of each i would say that it's less about style and more about tone. obama talks to americans like they are adults, while jindal sounded like he was talking to toddlers. while this is partly a matter of style, i think it's about how the person views the electorate. people don't like to be talked down to, and won't accept any message if they feel that they're being condescended to.
Interesting points from both of you.
Ron: When you say "this" generation, do you mean the Baby Boomers? Or do you mean the whole of today's voting public?
Aaron: I didn't get the impression that Jindal had a condescending tone. I thought his theme of "Americans can do anything" was really inspiring/empowering. But then again, reading the transcript, I didn't catch any tonal inflections. I'll have to check out a clip...
Jindal's speach reminded me of the valedictorian speech my junior year in high school. The speakers projected her voice on a delay which threw her off her game. She would pause after every few words to allow the speakers to "catch up" with her. No one actually paid attention to what she said because no one could stand the way she was speaking. I think that was Jindal's problem. His delivery was just so odd. It threw everyone for a loop. Maybe I should read the speech, but I wasn't very impressed with the bit that I heard--style not included. But I am most definitely a Democrat, which had much to do with it, I'm sure.
And I'm glad you're blogging again!
Hi Nicole! Thanks! :o)
The valedictorian speech sounds quite painful!
I'm late to the party here, but I'll throw my 2 cents in.
Obama is a very gifted orator. The topic could be about the benefits of eating grape jelly once a week and the man would make it interesting. It's really not fair to compare his style with Jindal's.
Jindal's style was very Stepford to me. The message was okay, but the delivery was not very authentic at all. I'm a tried and true Dem, but I thought Jindal was a great selection as a new leader in the Republican Party. It was very unfortunate that the speech didn't go over well. But I don't agree with the idea that this has damaged his rep with the Republican Party. I think that party is searching for new leaders and Jindal is a good choice still. Do I think he could run against Obama in the next election and win? Nope. But he might help sway votes as a VP nominee.
Glad I found your blog!
Hey Laura! Welcome to the blog. I don't broadcast that I have one, because I have this bizarre love-hate relationship with it and keep stopping and restarting. :o)
Thanks for your thoughts!
Post a Comment