Every American will wholeheartedly agree that one of our most basic and noblest beliefs is that all people are created equal, and should be allowed the benefit of beginning their pursuit of happiness on a playing field that is equal and level to every other American. In fact, that’s what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was all about, insuring that everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion or country of origin had equal opportunity to succeed (or fail) under the law. Yes, it would take time for some people to get used to the idea and change their biased ways (our history of inequality is long and shameful), but for the first time in our history, they would clearly be on the wrong side of the law.
Unfortunately, a level field wasn’t enough for some people. Under President Johnson’s Great Society ideals, the government became obliged to make up for "past injustices," thus the creation of Affirmative Action, a sweeping initiative that, with the stroke of a pen, declared everyone who was not of European Caucasian descent socially, morally and/or intellectually inferior, incapable of achieving wealth, health and happiness without the benevolent interference of our know-it-all government. Why would any group of people willingly admit to that?
Quite simply, it was because they astutely recognized how many special privileges such a demeaning label would reap them in the long run. For the price of being labeled inferior, they no longer had to begin at the starting gate, like every other young person in the country, they could start a hundred yards into the race, legally, sanctioned, even encouraged by the law. And the bar wasn’t just set with the legislation in 1968. As recently as 1989 new laws were added to insure that those wanting to secure government contracts had special advantages. The wording of the 8a designation, which grants greater consideration for such contracts, is "Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Native Americans are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged."
"Presumed to be" is pretty powerful stuff. The daughters of Senator Barack Obama and his wife (both graduates of Ivy League Universities) are hardly "socially and economically disadvantaged," but the simple fact that they are three-quarters black means they automatically go to the front of the line in the pursuit of their education and vocation, according to the law. Is it any wonder that ordinary Americans feel put upon, fueling any dormant prejudices that may remain from the past, or worse, rekindling another generation of racists who inevitably recognize the unfairness of the deal their fathers and grandfathers made?
When will we realize that preference for one group inherently means repression of another?
Every loyal American would vehemently disagree that anyone should receive special privileges because of their race, yet we’ve been brainwashed to think that it’s okay to have a Black Caucus in Congress, but a White one would be racist. We’ve been trained to believe that a Black Miss America Pageant where no whites need apply is fine, but a White Miss America Pageant with the same restrictions against blacks would be outrageous. We insist that mortgage lending be equal under the law, but force people to indicate their race on their applications in order to make sure the lender is lending "equally." If the lenders don’t, they’re subject to sanctions, yet if they do "meet the numbers," we hypocritically say there’s no quota being forced.
The biggest problem with Affirmative Action is that it fails to provide a measure for when those original "injustices" are sufficiently remedied. How do we know when we’ve achieved equal opportunity for all? When we have Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Native Americans in Congress? Been there, done that. How about in the Cabinet? Been there, done that. Must we have one of each minority become President before we finally decide we’ve outgrown Affirmative Action?
The whole Affirmative Action movement is one big fat hoodwink, and it needs to be changed before we raise another generation of citizens who learn that some Americans are given preferential treatment by the government (again) because of their gender, race, and creed. As long as Affirmative Action is on the books, as long as certain groups are given a hundred-yard advantage, individual achievements will never earn the respect they deserve, because there will always be doubt whether that success was the result of unfair play. For generations, the defining cry "Only in America!" could be proclaimed by anyone who achieved success from humble beginnings, despite whatever obstacles of life were put in their way. Somehow, it doesn’t ring quite so true when the government, by law, removes some of those obstacles based on racist reasoning, further perpetuating our long shameful history of inequality.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Abortion Shouldn’t be a Presidential Issue
For decades now, pro-life and pro-choice forces have been trying to make abortion a key issue in Presidential elections. To date, there is no evidence that their posturing and vehemence has made any difference at all, either to the outcome of the election or the furthering of the issue. By wasting all their time, money and energy pinning all their hopes on a candidate that has little or no control over the debate (other than to appoint justices that never seem to vote the way they want anyway), both sides have missed many opportunities to progress this heated dialogue toward a practical and amenable solution.
The obvious yet unseen truth is that both the pro-life people and the pro-choice people want the same thing: for every pregnancy to be a planned and wanted one. But their horns have become so locked in anger, so inflamed at the insensitivity of the other side, that they are unable to step back and look at the big picture, and the many, many things they have in common, including the clear-cut steps necessary to achieve their mutual goal.
It is their stubbornness to see the other’s point of view that precludes them from coming together with solutions that would benefit everyone in a satisfactory way. By distracting themselves with the hunt for the perfect Presidential candidate to support their side, they have alleviated themselves from having to tackle the tough issues on the ground, where it counts. In the 1960’s vernacular, both sides have "copped out."
Yes, the arguments for pro-choice and pro-life are wide and deep. Yes, there are strong feelings on both sides. But the fact is, better solutions could be found, if only the leadership of the groups that hold this issue most dear would come together, rather than put all their eggs in an inconsequential presidential basket.
The fact is, abortion has been legal in this country for over thirty years now, and few people would want to give up a right they have had for more than a generation, any more than they would want to return to the days of Prohibition. For those of us who remember the reality of the pre-Roe v. Wade days, when abortion was as illegal as ultra-conservatives would like to make it again, women still had abortions, just as people still drank during Prohibition despite its illegality. The difference is that when you try to legislate behavior, rather than educate responsibility and accountability for that behavior, everyone, and our society as a whole, loses. We lose freedom, we lose rationality, we lose common sense.
Just as making alcohol illegal forced the making of moonshine and bathtub gin in unsanitary conditions the norm, thus posing a greater health risk to those who ingested it, women will once again be forced to give up the current safe and sanitary conditions with skilled medical personnel, and return to the days of sneaking into run-down flophouses, with abortions being performed by anyone with a coat-hanger and a modicum of greed, inviting infection and botched procedures that cost not just the lives of the embryo, but the lives of thousands of women as well. The Prohibition of abortion has never been successful, just as the Prohibition of alcohol, too, was a spectacular failure.
There is no question that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would force a return to that kind of butchery, because women in certain unfortunate circumstances have for millennia been making that choice, albeit a choice of last resort, and always will. These are lessons we Americans have already learned. Why must we have to learn them over and over again?
By the same token, the preservation of life is also an extremely important matter for all of us. Naturally we’d like every pregnancy to end in a healthy birth, every child born to grow up in a happy and well-balanced family, either natural or adopted, and to live up to his or her full potential as a benevolent human being. The problem is, reality gets in the way. Life has never been that easy, even under the best of circumstances, and never will be. Human nature, even with the best of intentions, won’t allow it.
Most importantly, it must be realized that the settlement of the pro-life v. pro-choice issue won’t come with either the repeal or the salvation of Roe v. Wade. Even were the decision to be overturned, the debate would continue. Solutions can only come when the two sides seek out and find their common ground, and settle it peacefully, and the sooner they stop wasting time and get on with it, the better. Unfortunately, that won’t happen as long as the issue erroneously remains a contentious presidential one to be fought over again and again every four years.
The obvious yet unseen truth is that both the pro-life people and the pro-choice people want the same thing: for every pregnancy to be a planned and wanted one. But their horns have become so locked in anger, so inflamed at the insensitivity of the other side, that they are unable to step back and look at the big picture, and the many, many things they have in common, including the clear-cut steps necessary to achieve their mutual goal.
It is their stubbornness to see the other’s point of view that precludes them from coming together with solutions that would benefit everyone in a satisfactory way. By distracting themselves with the hunt for the perfect Presidential candidate to support their side, they have alleviated themselves from having to tackle the tough issues on the ground, where it counts. In the 1960’s vernacular, both sides have "copped out."
Yes, the arguments for pro-choice and pro-life are wide and deep. Yes, there are strong feelings on both sides. But the fact is, better solutions could be found, if only the leadership of the groups that hold this issue most dear would come together, rather than put all their eggs in an inconsequential presidential basket.
The fact is, abortion has been legal in this country for over thirty years now, and few people would want to give up a right they have had for more than a generation, any more than they would want to return to the days of Prohibition. For those of us who remember the reality of the pre-Roe v. Wade days, when abortion was as illegal as ultra-conservatives would like to make it again, women still had abortions, just as people still drank during Prohibition despite its illegality. The difference is that when you try to legislate behavior, rather than educate responsibility and accountability for that behavior, everyone, and our society as a whole, loses. We lose freedom, we lose rationality, we lose common sense.
Just as making alcohol illegal forced the making of moonshine and bathtub gin in unsanitary conditions the norm, thus posing a greater health risk to those who ingested it, women will once again be forced to give up the current safe and sanitary conditions with skilled medical personnel, and return to the days of sneaking into run-down flophouses, with abortions being performed by anyone with a coat-hanger and a modicum of greed, inviting infection and botched procedures that cost not just the lives of the embryo, but the lives of thousands of women as well. The Prohibition of abortion has never been successful, just as the Prohibition of alcohol, too, was a spectacular failure.
There is no question that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would force a return to that kind of butchery, because women in certain unfortunate circumstances have for millennia been making that choice, albeit a choice of last resort, and always will. These are lessons we Americans have already learned. Why must we have to learn them over and over again?
By the same token, the preservation of life is also an extremely important matter for all of us. Naturally we’d like every pregnancy to end in a healthy birth, every child born to grow up in a happy and well-balanced family, either natural or adopted, and to live up to his or her full potential as a benevolent human being. The problem is, reality gets in the way. Life has never been that easy, even under the best of circumstances, and never will be. Human nature, even with the best of intentions, won’t allow it.
Most importantly, it must be realized that the settlement of the pro-life v. pro-choice issue won’t come with either the repeal or the salvation of Roe v. Wade. Even were the decision to be overturned, the debate would continue. Solutions can only come when the two sides seek out and find their common ground, and settle it peacefully, and the sooner they stop wasting time and get on with it, the better. Unfortunately, that won’t happen as long as the issue erroneously remains a contentious presidential one to be fought over again and again every four years.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Pelosi’s Vigilante Diplomacy Should be Prosecuted
There is a myriad of long-standing laws on the books prohibiting American citizens and unauthorized officials from negotiating public agreements with other nations outside normal diplomatic channels. It is absolutely clear that House leader Nancy Pelosi’s recent trip to Syria violates those laws. She should therefore be prosecuted to their fullest extent, along with everyone else in her entourage.
Vigilante behavior, no matter how noble it’s goals may be perceived by some, is still rightly abhorred in this country. Reminiscent of discredited frontier justice in the old West and rampant lynch mobs in the Deep South, it is just as disgusting now as it ever was, and even more dangerous when it is carried out by highly placed officials who think themselves above the very laws they create yet expect the rest of us to abide.
The late president Lyndon Johnson once wrote, "I am a free man, an American, a United States Senator, and a Democrat, in that order," wise words too many politicos have forgotten. Fortunately, most of our citizenry still believes that’s the way things should be. We are still capable of lifting the fog of party affiliation and thinking like Americans, making it much easier for us to answer these next questions:
Is it right for any public official to flaunt America’s laws simply because they hold an elected office? Is it right for anyone to place themselves above the clear path of diplomacy our country has established and falsely take up the mantle of a completely different path without sanction by those whose responsibility it is? As Americans, a nation that depends on the adherence to laws, the answer can only be a resounding "No," which means that the Justice Department should immediately begin proceedings against those who recently traveled to the Mideast, as visibly and succinctly as possible. Failure to make an example of this outrage will only result in more criminal behavior, and even more dangerous disregard for the law by our officials.
Unfortunately, few people in Washington these days would embrace the sensible words of President Johnson and put their party affiliation on the back burner. Instead, we have a Democrat party that will likely reward their House Leader for her vigilante diplomacy, and a Justice Department too skittish to do the right thing for fear of creating further political strife for their Republican (rather than American) bosses. A public prosecution would no doubt simply provide more fodder for the already overworked Democrat strategy for Bush-bashing.
But once again, the Democrats have run the risk of overplaying their hand. It is clear to even the most detached observer that the Democrat’s entire agenda is simply to continue to undermine anything and everything the administration does. As long as they kept their vituperous rhetoric within our shores, it could be excused, even tolerated because of our faith in the First Amendment.
But now that the incessant Bush-bashing has traveled overseas in a quasi-official status by fellow Americans, the line has been crossed, and Pelosi and her "bi-partisan" cohorts must be punished, not because of their party affiliation, but because they are citizens who broke the laws of our nation. If we fail to prosecute them simply because of their official positions or political affiliations, it will truly be a clear sign that vigilantism has regained it’s former ill-gotten legitimacy, and our more civilized America has completely, and sadly, lost its way.
Vigilante behavior, no matter how noble it’s goals may be perceived by some, is still rightly abhorred in this country. Reminiscent of discredited frontier justice in the old West and rampant lynch mobs in the Deep South, it is just as disgusting now as it ever was, and even more dangerous when it is carried out by highly placed officials who think themselves above the very laws they create yet expect the rest of us to abide.
The late president Lyndon Johnson once wrote, "I am a free man, an American, a United States Senator, and a Democrat, in that order," wise words too many politicos have forgotten. Fortunately, most of our citizenry still believes that’s the way things should be. We are still capable of lifting the fog of party affiliation and thinking like Americans, making it much easier for us to answer these next questions:
Is it right for any public official to flaunt America’s laws simply because they hold an elected office? Is it right for anyone to place themselves above the clear path of diplomacy our country has established and falsely take up the mantle of a completely different path without sanction by those whose responsibility it is? As Americans, a nation that depends on the adherence to laws, the answer can only be a resounding "No," which means that the Justice Department should immediately begin proceedings against those who recently traveled to the Mideast, as visibly and succinctly as possible. Failure to make an example of this outrage will only result in more criminal behavior, and even more dangerous disregard for the law by our officials.
Unfortunately, few people in Washington these days would embrace the sensible words of President Johnson and put their party affiliation on the back burner. Instead, we have a Democrat party that will likely reward their House Leader for her vigilante diplomacy, and a Justice Department too skittish to do the right thing for fear of creating further political strife for their Republican (rather than American) bosses. A public prosecution would no doubt simply provide more fodder for the already overworked Democrat strategy for Bush-bashing.
But once again, the Democrats have run the risk of overplaying their hand. It is clear to even the most detached observer that the Democrat’s entire agenda is simply to continue to undermine anything and everything the administration does. As long as they kept their vituperous rhetoric within our shores, it could be excused, even tolerated because of our faith in the First Amendment.
But now that the incessant Bush-bashing has traveled overseas in a quasi-official status by fellow Americans, the line has been crossed, and Pelosi and her "bi-partisan" cohorts must be punished, not because of their party affiliation, but because they are citizens who broke the laws of our nation. If we fail to prosecute them simply because of their official positions or political affiliations, it will truly be a clear sign that vigilantism has regained it’s former ill-gotten legitimacy, and our more civilized America has completely, and sadly, lost its way.
Where Have All the Leaders Gone?
During a press conference a few weeks ago, President Bush repeated a comment that was made to him by an unnamed Congressman, who told him that the President’s upcoming Iraq speech "had better be eloquent." Our President’s reply made it clear that he didn’t think he had to be eloquent, or even adequate, that all that mattered was what happened on the ground. There’s no question that Mr. Bush has been wrong on many things before, but on this point, he is so far off the mark that it’s absurd.
We’re the country of great orators, from Ronald Reagan to JFK to FDR to Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Jefferson and just about every last one of our founding fathers. People who could rouse the nation into positive action, inspire our citizens to sacrifice personal comforts for the good of the many, men who could put aside differences and show us all the beauty of their vision of a united country, the last, best hope of a violent and unjust world.
How did we ever get to this point? Is it because all our latest generation of campaign politicos have grown up with the idea that we need to make our leaders "down to earth", like the guy next door? Frankly, the guy next door isn’t good enough. We need someone better. We need someone we can look up to and admire, to emulate, to want to FOLLOW to a better life, for goodness’ sake!
Which is why it is beyond comprehension that two U.S. Senators, Charles (sorry, "Chuck") Shumer and Dick Durbin, both with their eye on the White House in 2008, would allow ABC World News to come into their "Animal House", a two bedroom townhouse near the Capitol that they share with two other Congressmen. While the rest of us decent people would have called a maid service or worked for days preparing our homes for a national TV appearance, these four clowns didn’t bother to pick up old beer bottles, pizza boxes or even their dirty underwear! And they want us to seriously consider them to be the next President of the United States? You have to be kidding!
Have we as a country entirely lost our way? Or is it simply that our "leaders" have completely forgotten what leadership looks like? Our president certainly doesn’t know what it looks like, or how to do it, or even realize how important it is. Now we’ve learned that Senators like Durbin and Shumer don’t understand it either, as they remain oblivious as to how many followers (i.e. votes) they lost because of their slovenliness AND the poor decision to allow cameras into that mess in the first place. Just because a camera CAN come into their private lives doesn’t mean it should. We deserve better than this!
Yet we all DO recognize a leader when we see one. He or she is always the one in charge, the one with the plan, the ideas, the inspirational presentation that gets people first to agree, then to get off their duffs and go out and help make it happen. We recognize leadership in those that always behave like a leader, even when they are mortally wounded; always the last one to surrender and the first one to get back up to fight again; always has answers that look to a positive future, even if the answer is just , "I don’t know, but I know we can find a way"; always the one to make sure the needs of the followers are met before satisfying his or her own needs.
Yet here we are, a country with 300 million people, with a President how doesn’t have the first idea that leadership is ALL about appearing like a leader, who instead stutters and ums and uhs his way indecisively through every press conference, convinced he has no need to look like a President or act like a President, because he already has claim to the position.
We have senior Senators who aspire to replace that President who don’t even know that inviting cameras into their grown-up(?) Frat houses diminishes them, because it not only makes them seem less like the austere, wise Senators we expect them to be, it actually makes them seem like less than men, mere boys who can’t run a household as well as the worst housewife. How could we have been so foolish as to charge them with the responsibility of running our country as Senators, much less consider them as a possible Presidential contender?
It’s a simple fact: when a leader appears vulnerable or incompetent in the eyes of his followers, that leader ceases to be a leader. Were it not for the Constitutionally-designated term of office for a President which we Americans all respect, that time would have already arrived in fact, as it already has in perception as well as reality. We are now simply waiting impatiently to see who his successor will be.
Selecting a new President during this very long 2008 political cycle will be easy, and we’ll see it coming from a long way off. That’s because the first candidate that looks like a President, behaves like a President, and talks to us like he or she is already President will win this election, period. If NO candidate is able to achieve the appearance of true leadership, as recent history suggests is quite possible and perhaps even likely, then it will be a long political season indeed.
We’re the country of great orators, from Ronald Reagan to JFK to FDR to Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Jefferson and just about every last one of our founding fathers. People who could rouse the nation into positive action, inspire our citizens to sacrifice personal comforts for the good of the many, men who could put aside differences and show us all the beauty of their vision of a united country, the last, best hope of a violent and unjust world.
How did we ever get to this point? Is it because all our latest generation of campaign politicos have grown up with the idea that we need to make our leaders "down to earth", like the guy next door? Frankly, the guy next door isn’t good enough. We need someone better. We need someone we can look up to and admire, to emulate, to want to FOLLOW to a better life, for goodness’ sake!
Which is why it is beyond comprehension that two U.S. Senators, Charles (sorry, "Chuck") Shumer and Dick Durbin, both with their eye on the White House in 2008, would allow ABC World News to come into their "Animal House", a two bedroom townhouse near the Capitol that they share with two other Congressmen. While the rest of us decent people would have called a maid service or worked for days preparing our homes for a national TV appearance, these four clowns didn’t bother to pick up old beer bottles, pizza boxes or even their dirty underwear! And they want us to seriously consider them to be the next President of the United States? You have to be kidding!
Have we as a country entirely lost our way? Or is it simply that our "leaders" have completely forgotten what leadership looks like? Our president certainly doesn’t know what it looks like, or how to do it, or even realize how important it is. Now we’ve learned that Senators like Durbin and Shumer don’t understand it either, as they remain oblivious as to how many followers (i.e. votes) they lost because of their slovenliness AND the poor decision to allow cameras into that mess in the first place. Just because a camera CAN come into their private lives doesn’t mean it should. We deserve better than this!
Yet we all DO recognize a leader when we see one. He or she is always the one in charge, the one with the plan, the ideas, the inspirational presentation that gets people first to agree, then to get off their duffs and go out and help make it happen. We recognize leadership in those that always behave like a leader, even when they are mortally wounded; always the last one to surrender and the first one to get back up to fight again; always has answers that look to a positive future, even if the answer is just , "I don’t know, but I know we can find a way"; always the one to make sure the needs of the followers are met before satisfying his or her own needs.
Yet here we are, a country with 300 million people, with a President how doesn’t have the first idea that leadership is ALL about appearing like a leader, who instead stutters and ums and uhs his way indecisively through every press conference, convinced he has no need to look like a President or act like a President, because he already has claim to the position.
We have senior Senators who aspire to replace that President who don’t even know that inviting cameras into their grown-up(?) Frat houses diminishes them, because it not only makes them seem less like the austere, wise Senators we expect them to be, it actually makes them seem like less than men, mere boys who can’t run a household as well as the worst housewife. How could we have been so foolish as to charge them with the responsibility of running our country as Senators, much less consider them as a possible Presidential contender?
It’s a simple fact: when a leader appears vulnerable or incompetent in the eyes of his followers, that leader ceases to be a leader. Were it not for the Constitutionally-designated term of office for a President which we Americans all respect, that time would have already arrived in fact, as it already has in perception as well as reality. We are now simply waiting impatiently to see who his successor will be.
Selecting a new President during this very long 2008 political cycle will be easy, and we’ll see it coming from a long way off. That’s because the first candidate that looks like a President, behaves like a President, and talks to us like he or she is already President will win this election, period. If NO candidate is able to achieve the appearance of true leadership, as recent history suggests is quite possible and perhaps even likely, then it will be a long political season indeed.
State of the Union Long on Content, Short on Delivery
As usual, President Bush’s delivery of the State of the Union was less than inspiring, not because his script lacked what Americans needed to hear, but because he, once again, failed to grasp the simple concept that HOW he delivers his message is significantly more important to his viewers than WHAT that message is.
Bush is not alone in this lack of understanding. Political pundits who subsequently analyze his speech invariably gloss over his delivery with a few vague adjectives (strong, weak, tired, flat), then skip merrily along to tearing apart the content of the message, which is easy because no matter what it is, it could never make everyone happy no matter how well written it might be.
Most Americans, on the other hand, will form an opinion of his speech based on HOW he said it rather than WHAT he said. What most of us feel about the speech is primarily derived from how Mr. Bush MADE us feel about it, and that comes entirely through his delivery, not his words. When the president’s delivery is lackluster and uninspired, it’s impossible for his audience to feel anything more than that.
Let’s face it. We all instinctively know what characteristics we expect from a President of the United States. It is practically ingrained in us from birth. When someone says, "That person looks presidential," we know exactly what they mean. Whenever an actor portrays a president, he or she always know just what to do to look "presidential." That’s one reason why Ronald Reagan was dubbed the "Great Communicator," because he had acquired the tools he needed to be a good presenter during his early acting career, and continued to hone them throughout his life.
Yet these tools are hardly exclusive to professional performers. Bill Clinton was a very good presenter, too, as was John F. Kennedy and FDR. Unfortunately, most viewers, including the political pundits, believe that the ability to appear presidential, particularly in difficult times like these, is something innate, incomprehensible and immeasurable. They believe that a person either has been born with the ability to make an effective presentation, or he hasn’t, period.
Because of that errant assumption, many people don’t even try to seek out and acquire the tools that could be of such benefit to them. Such is the case with President Bush. Despite the fact that being able to make an effective presentation (which includes the tools necessary to look "presidential") is, or should be, Job One for a president, this president has capitulated that responsibility, surrendering in the face of ongoing criticism because he believes he’s doing the best he can. He hasn’t learned what every actor knows, that these skills need constant honing, and that with the right tools, he could learn to be better.
There’s still time for President Bush to regain some of his earlier power and popularity by improving his presentation skills. Just look at Al Gore. He’s gone from Mr. Stiff in 2000 to Academy Award nominated performer in 2006, just because he learned somewhere along the line how to make a better presentation. If Al Gore can do it, anybody can.
Bush is not alone in this lack of understanding. Political pundits who subsequently analyze his speech invariably gloss over his delivery with a few vague adjectives (strong, weak, tired, flat), then skip merrily along to tearing apart the content of the message, which is easy because no matter what it is, it could never make everyone happy no matter how well written it might be.
Most Americans, on the other hand, will form an opinion of his speech based on HOW he said it rather than WHAT he said. What most of us feel about the speech is primarily derived from how Mr. Bush MADE us feel about it, and that comes entirely through his delivery, not his words. When the president’s delivery is lackluster and uninspired, it’s impossible for his audience to feel anything more than that.
Let’s face it. We all instinctively know what characteristics we expect from a President of the United States. It is practically ingrained in us from birth. When someone says, "That person looks presidential," we know exactly what they mean. Whenever an actor portrays a president, he or she always know just what to do to look "presidential." That’s one reason why Ronald Reagan was dubbed the "Great Communicator," because he had acquired the tools he needed to be a good presenter during his early acting career, and continued to hone them throughout his life.
Yet these tools are hardly exclusive to professional performers. Bill Clinton was a very good presenter, too, as was John F. Kennedy and FDR. Unfortunately, most viewers, including the political pundits, believe that the ability to appear presidential, particularly in difficult times like these, is something innate, incomprehensible and immeasurable. They believe that a person either has been born with the ability to make an effective presentation, or he hasn’t, period.
Because of that errant assumption, many people don’t even try to seek out and acquire the tools that could be of such benefit to them. Such is the case with President Bush. Despite the fact that being able to make an effective presentation (which includes the tools necessary to look "presidential") is, or should be, Job One for a president, this president has capitulated that responsibility, surrendering in the face of ongoing criticism because he believes he’s doing the best he can. He hasn’t learned what every actor knows, that these skills need constant honing, and that with the right tools, he could learn to be better.
There’s still time for President Bush to regain some of his earlier power and popularity by improving his presentation skills. Just look at Al Gore. He’s gone from Mr. Stiff in 2000 to Academy Award nominated performer in 2006, just because he learned somewhere along the line how to make a better presentation. If Al Gore can do it, anybody can.
What To Look For in President Bush’s State of the Union Address
Most people will be looking for substantive content in President Bush’s State of the Union Address Tuesday night, but it is not his carefully crafted content that will sway the hearts and minds of Americans. It will be in the way the speech is delivered.
While political pundits will use vague adjectives to momentarily describe the president’s style (strong, weak, tired, flat) before quickly turning to the "meaning" of the content, most Americans will set an opinion of his speech based on HOW he said it rather than what he said. How we feel about the speech will be solely derived from how well Mr. Bush MAKES us feel about it through his delivery.
For the professional speech analyst, the elements that make a speech successful can be measured, counted and scored against specific criteria. For the average American (and political pundit), it simply registers as a gut feeling based on what we expect, and what is needed at that moment in time based on our own experience and desires.
We all instinctively know what characteristics we expect from a President of the United States, and it is only through his own personal presentation that we can know whether or not we are getting it. What is needed for the country at this time is for President Bush to take on a "Father Knows Best" posture. Kind, patient, wise, yet strong and sure of himself, the guidance of a teacher to help us understand more clearly why he’s been making the decisions he has, despite our inability to see those reasons clearly. This must be delivered in a way that is not condescending or defensive, or, as in the case of his Iraq speech earlier this month, overly contrite, so much so as to appear weak.
For the layman, the test is a simple one. When you listen to President Bush speak Tuesday night, ask yourself this. "Does he behave like a President having an important conversation (as opposed to ‘giving a speech’? Am I included in that conversation?" If the answer is "Yes," then the has succeeded in getting you on board, at least for the moment. If the answer is "No," expect the pundits to be vague in their comments about style and merciless in their criticism of his content, despite the fact that his content has almost nothing to do with it.
In the world of politics, where Americans have learned that no message remains constant, this is definitely a stellar case for the old adage, "It’s not WHAT you say, it’s HOW you say it."
While political pundits will use vague adjectives to momentarily describe the president’s style (strong, weak, tired, flat) before quickly turning to the "meaning" of the content, most Americans will set an opinion of his speech based on HOW he said it rather than what he said. How we feel about the speech will be solely derived from how well Mr. Bush MAKES us feel about it through his delivery.
For the professional speech analyst, the elements that make a speech successful can be measured, counted and scored against specific criteria. For the average American (and political pundit), it simply registers as a gut feeling based on what we expect, and what is needed at that moment in time based on our own experience and desires.
We all instinctively know what characteristics we expect from a President of the United States, and it is only through his own personal presentation that we can know whether or not we are getting it. What is needed for the country at this time is for President Bush to take on a "Father Knows Best" posture. Kind, patient, wise, yet strong and sure of himself, the guidance of a teacher to help us understand more clearly why he’s been making the decisions he has, despite our inability to see those reasons clearly. This must be delivered in a way that is not condescending or defensive, or, as in the case of his Iraq speech earlier this month, overly contrite, so much so as to appear weak.
For the layman, the test is a simple one. When you listen to President Bush speak Tuesday night, ask yourself this. "Does he behave like a President having an important conversation (as opposed to ‘giving a speech’? Am I included in that conversation?" If the answer is "Yes," then the has succeeded in getting you on board, at least for the moment. If the answer is "No," expect the pundits to be vague in their comments about style and merciless in their criticism of his content, despite the fact that his content has almost nothing to do with it.
In the world of politics, where Americans have learned that no message remains constant, this is definitely a stellar case for the old adage, "It’s not WHAT you say, it’s HOW you say it."
Presentation is the Key to Presidential Legacies
When you look at the biographies of our founding fathers, almost all of them include remarks about how that person was "a great orator." How many presidents have earned that moniker since the advent of radio and TV in the last century? Three, maybe four in eighty years.
Consider the legacy of FDR. Though some of us might remember him for his massive social programs that helped us rise from the Depression, most of us remember his Fireside chats and his speech to Congress after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, that "date which will live on in infamy."
The next president we all remember as a good speaker is JFK. Though we will never forget his assassination in broad daylight and the aftermath that followed, we very often remember how he beat his opponent Richard Nixon in a debate because Nixon was shifty-eyed, sweating, and on the verge of a "makeup malfunction," while JFK appeared cool, calm and "presidential."
The next most remarkable president from a presentational standpoint, of course, is Ronald Reagan. As the first career actor to take the presidential podium, he grew up understanding and mastering the art of the electronic media, which is why he earned the coveted title, "The Great Communicator." In reality, his presidency succeeded because he knew precisely how to communicate with the people, even on unpopular issues, and to make us see the world as our world, together, for the first time in many decades.
His successor, George H.W. Bush is better known for his lack of ability to communicate. While he may have been a very effective and popular leader at the time for having fought and won a war on his watch, he was unable to effectively communicate "that vision thing" during his re-election campaign. The result was a resounding defeat by a practically unknown, backwoods Arkansan who had almost no name recognition at the time, but quickly made up for that by being able to make a great presentation. It’s a lesson astute contenders for the 2008 presidential election should take to heart.
What Bill Clinton did have (and still does), is an excellent understanding of the techniques necessary to make an effective presentation, regardless of the venue or the circumstances. Clinton has clearly mastered the art of talking his way into and out of just about anything. It takes years of training to master, in the same way it took years of studio training for President Reagan to master, but the results are well worth it.
Now, of course, we have President George W. Bush. What sort of presentational legacy will he leave? When he speaks before a friendly crowd using teleprompters, he can usually come across adequately, though not very inspiring, despite some very well written speeches, confirming that it’s less about what you say and more about how you say it.
When he has to answer questions, however, he fails miserably, for two main reasons. The first is his incessant use of "thinking words" like "um" and "uh," which makes it appear that he has no clue how to answer, or that he’s just making things up as he goes along. This terrible and counterproductive habit (and one that even many newscasters are now succumbing), can have no other effect on the listener than to force them to conclude the speaker has no idea what he or she is talking about. Obviously, this is not the kind of impression a leader should want to make.
The second major mistake he makes is with his defensive, even whiney tone of voice. Sounding like a whiner diminishes all remaining credibility. No one wants to follow a whiner. Imagine George Bush using that defensive tone of his for a line like, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Again, it’s less about what you say, and more about how you say it that wins the hearts and minds of the listener.
The United States has had many great leaders who were poor presenters. We’ve also had many great presenters who were poor leaders. Yet the only ones that seem to leave a legacy worth remembering are the few that manage to achieve both.
We are grateful that our Constitution and it’s First Amendment allow us to criticize our leaders like this without fear of prosecution, thus making this article possible. But the "right to free speech" is being underutilized when it doesn’t encourage the "right to great speech" as well. The next leader that is able to both lead and make a great speech might once again earn the legacy of "great orator." Heaven knows, we could use one.
Consider the legacy of FDR. Though some of us might remember him for his massive social programs that helped us rise from the Depression, most of us remember his Fireside chats and his speech to Congress after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, that "date which will live on in infamy."
The next president we all remember as a good speaker is JFK. Though we will never forget his assassination in broad daylight and the aftermath that followed, we very often remember how he beat his opponent Richard Nixon in a debate because Nixon was shifty-eyed, sweating, and on the verge of a "makeup malfunction," while JFK appeared cool, calm and "presidential."
The next most remarkable president from a presentational standpoint, of course, is Ronald Reagan. As the first career actor to take the presidential podium, he grew up understanding and mastering the art of the electronic media, which is why he earned the coveted title, "The Great Communicator." In reality, his presidency succeeded because he knew precisely how to communicate with the people, even on unpopular issues, and to make us see the world as our world, together, for the first time in many decades.
His successor, George H.W. Bush is better known for his lack of ability to communicate. While he may have been a very effective and popular leader at the time for having fought and won a war on his watch, he was unable to effectively communicate "that vision thing" during his re-election campaign. The result was a resounding defeat by a practically unknown, backwoods Arkansan who had almost no name recognition at the time, but quickly made up for that by being able to make a great presentation. It’s a lesson astute contenders for the 2008 presidential election should take to heart.
What Bill Clinton did have (and still does), is an excellent understanding of the techniques necessary to make an effective presentation, regardless of the venue or the circumstances. Clinton has clearly mastered the art of talking his way into and out of just about anything. It takes years of training to master, in the same way it took years of studio training for President Reagan to master, but the results are well worth it.
Now, of course, we have President George W. Bush. What sort of presentational legacy will he leave? When he speaks before a friendly crowd using teleprompters, he can usually come across adequately, though not very inspiring, despite some very well written speeches, confirming that it’s less about what you say and more about how you say it.
When he has to answer questions, however, he fails miserably, for two main reasons. The first is his incessant use of "thinking words" like "um" and "uh," which makes it appear that he has no clue how to answer, or that he’s just making things up as he goes along. This terrible and counterproductive habit (and one that even many newscasters are now succumbing), can have no other effect on the listener than to force them to conclude the speaker has no idea what he or she is talking about. Obviously, this is not the kind of impression a leader should want to make.
The second major mistake he makes is with his defensive, even whiney tone of voice. Sounding like a whiner diminishes all remaining credibility. No one wants to follow a whiner. Imagine George Bush using that defensive tone of his for a line like, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Again, it’s less about what you say, and more about how you say it that wins the hearts and minds of the listener.
The United States has had many great leaders who were poor presenters. We’ve also had many great presenters who were poor leaders. Yet the only ones that seem to leave a legacy worth remembering are the few that manage to achieve both.
We are grateful that our Constitution and it’s First Amendment allow us to criticize our leaders like this without fear of prosecution, thus making this article possible. But the "right to free speech" is being underutilized when it doesn’t encourage the "right to great speech" as well. The next leader that is able to both lead and make a great speech might once again earn the legacy of "great orator." Heaven knows, we could use one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
