Erudition and elocution: Then versus Now

[foraker]

Then:

 

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it.

 

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

 

Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861, From His First Inaugural Address.

 

 

 

Now:

"You know, I hear people say, Well, civil war this, civil war that. The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box." George W Bush

 

[cj001f]

HL Mencken, 26 July 1920:

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

 

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

[JayB]

It'd be really interesting to compare quotes from people who were considered the finest public speakers of their day, and contrast them to the politicians who are the rhetorical standard bearers these days. Ditto for matching up the worst of yesteryear with the worst of today.

[cj001f]

It'd be really interesting to compare quotes from people who were considered the finest public speakers of their day, and contrast them to the politicians who are the rhetorical standard bearers these days. Ditto for matching up the worst of yesteryear with the worst of today.

 

I'm sure there'd be a change - if only because media has changed. Since the advent of C-Span debate is for the camera, not to convince their fellow congressmen. The news cycle places a great emphasis on parsable quotes, not coherent speechs. There's also a change in cultural norms - Shakespeare & GrecoRoman history were very popular - both placed great emphasis on speeches.

[JayB]

True - and rhetoric was a major part of the trivium/quadrivium (1/7th) model that served as the basis for a signicant chunk of most university graduates until until at least the turn of the century, so the oldschoolers probably had an edge in that respect as well.

 

It'd be kind of interesting to know which of the major figures of the founding era was considered the worst public speaker. My money would be on Washington, as his character, bearing, ability to inspire loyalty, etc seemed to be much more widely esteemed than his rhetorical talents. Patrick Henry and John Adams probably ranked up there with the best, but I suspect the top ranks were pretty crowded at the time.

[catbirdseat]

H. L. Mencken was the Nostradamus of the Twentieth Century.

[foraker]

I think it's not too much to ask that a president of the most powerful nation on Earth be able to handle a press conference without sounding like a frat boy after a weekend bender. It would also be nice if this didn't happen every time his handlers let him get within speaking distance of anyone from the press.

[DirtyHarry]

"You know, I hear people say, Well, civil war this, civil war that. The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box." George W Bush

 

In the same elocution, GW said something to the effect of things are tough right now because his foreign policy is focused on ensuring that other countries are democraticly governed and don't violate human rights instead of being focused just on whether they cooperate with us economically.

 

So that made me wonder when are we going to attack Saudi Arabia and China then?

[JayB]

I think it's not too much to ask that a president of the most powerful nation on Earth be able to handle a press conference without sounding like a frat boy after a weekend bender. It would also be nice if this didn't happen every time his handlers let him get within speaking distance of anyone from the press.

 

This is true. I think it's almost more painful to watch someone struggle to argue on behalf of ideas that you believe in or articulate them poorly than to listen to an eloquent attack on them.

 

I saw a pretty funny skit once where GW and Tony were at a joint press conference, a reporter would ask a question, and GW would struggle to string together a single coherent though, while Tony looked on with a pained and impatient expression on his face. After GW stopped, Tony would take over and transmute GW's thoughts into an an articulate and persuasive defense of whatever it was that GW was arguing on behalf of. Pretty funny - I think it was on SNL a while back.

[cj001f]

This is true. I think it's almost more painful to watch someone struggle to argue on behalf of ideas that you believe in or articulate them poorly than to listen to an eloquent attack on them.

It's not the absence of eloquence that's so depressing about W - it's a combination of his incomprehension of the policies he's espousing, and that his ineloquence is forced - he trained himself to speak like a boob.