The Linguistic Case Against Barack Obama
May 11th, 2007
By Michael van der Galien
Patrick O’Hannigan wrote an interesting article about Barack Obama… back in March of this year; I am afraid that I missed it, thanks to reader Yonason I read it just now and found it so interesting that I thought you all might enjoy reading it as well; if for nothing else, then to function as a counterweight to all the positive media Obama receives.
The title of the article: “The Linguistic Case Against Barack Obama.”
Barack Obama may have frightened Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton into rewriting the civil rights section of her autobiography (was that erstwhile “Goldwater Girl” really a staunch supporter of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. even though Goldwater himself was not?), but the man whose claims to fame consist solely of having made a more-polished-than-average speech at his party’s national convention, and having defeated Alan Keyes for a Senate seat from Illinois, is not yet ready for prime time. Obama has never had to punch above his weight, as they say in boxing…
Since finding the limelight, Obama has given the rest of us only rhetoric that won’t stand up to scrutiny, much less “lexpionage” (defined by the WordSpy web site as “the sleuthing of new words and phrases”).
Take his catchphrase, “the audacity of hope.” As some pundits have observed, hope is not especially audacious when you have a Pepsodent smile, a diploma from Hawaii’s most prestigious high school, and a stint as editor of the Harvard Law Review, together with multicultural credentials even Tiger Woods might envy (Kansas and Kenya? Get out!).
But forget Obama’s biography for a minute. Look again at that catchphrase itself. It ought to be on a church billboard before some priest or minister preaches about what it must have been like for disciples to walk from Jerusalem to Emmaus three days after Jesus had been crucified. It might also advertise a sermon about the centurion who told Jesus that there was no need for him to come to his house, because healing could be done through a simple word of command. In either case, that was audacious hope, which — we have on good authority — typically travels in the company of faith and love…
In the first chapter of “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama congratulates himself for recognizing the alleged risk of talking as though a citizenry grappling with “globalization, dizzying technological change, cutthroat politics and unremitting culture wars” had a shared language with which to discuss our ideals. As an example of good judgment, this would be more effective uncoupled from a paragraph that celebrates “values and ideals” that “remain alive in the hearts and minds of most Americans.” But having found common ground that “binds us together despite our differences,” Obama promptly ignores his own campaign-trail experience to lament the lack of it.
Read the whole thing.
Some of the criticism is certainly fair: Obama is rhetorically very gifted, but high quality rhetoric alone is not, or should, be enough to make people consider voting for someone. Catchphrases might sound good, but more often than not, when under close scrutiny one can, very often, not help but notice that there are many contradictions and one might very well wonder “well, it sounds good, but what is he actually saying?”
This entry was posted on Friday, May 11th, 2007 at 1:26 am and is filed under Democrats, 2008 Elections. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
