As (I think) the only vocal and publicly-enthusiastic Obama supporter here on the VC, I more than share my colleagues' excitement over the events of last night. (I think it's telling -- and a very hopeful sign for an Obama presidency -- that even people (like many of my co-bloggers here) who disagree so strongly with Obama on so many important substantive issues found much to be proud of, and much to be excited about, last night. It was hard -- almost impossible, I would think -- not to be moved as the night wore on; even McCain, in what I thought was a deeply-felt and gracious concession speech, far and away his best moment of the last several months, seemed genuinely and profoundly moved by the significance of the moment, and put that across without cant or rancor; a great moment for him, I thought - I suspect I was not alone in thinking "jeez, where has that John McCain been over the last few months?"
Among other things, I'm hopeful that Obama's victory signals a return to serious political oratory. We haven't had a "great communicator" in the White House for a long, long time -- since Reagan. We haven't even really had a "pretty good communicator," and the last eight years were probably the nadir. It's not the guns at his command that, ultimately, gives a US president power, it's how he leads, and how he uses words to communicate with us is a critical component of that. There were two pieces of political oratory last night -- McCain's concession speech and Obama's victory speech -- and they were both home runs; I can't remember that ever happening before. I also thought it remarkable that both men found the same meaning in the events -- both drew from Obama's victory the idea that people can accomplish incredible things here, in the US, if they put their mind to it and work hard for it. I'm really looking forward to Obama's Inauguration Address - we need inspiration, and the guy is pretty damned inspiring.
And the most interesting little observation I heard last night from commentators: Feb. 2009 marks the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln, and we will have a black man from Illinois leading the celebrations. It's like Adams and Jefferson dying on the same day, 50 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence -- you couldn't make this stuff up.
Related Posts (on one page):
As for the Bible Code-level observation, well, I am a week shy of being exactly 100 years younger than Proust; whoop dee do.
I also agree that we need some inspiring. Turnout where I live was very high for both sides, so it isn't just that Obama is inspiring his own supporters. Rather, people seem motivated about the political process because they are realizing that they can affect their world, that they have a duty to do this. Let's hope that keeps going. As a moderate I don't want to see the Republican party fall apart in this defeat. I really hope they regroup and move back towards the center to be that voice for states' rights and small government and prudence that they used to be.
"'jeez, where has that John McCain been over the last few months?'"
Right in front of your face? Amazing the difficulty people have supporting one side without either ignoring or actively demeaning the other.
That said, I think libertarians shouldn't have a problem with someone who is a good speaker, because by itself it has no reflection upon their opinions or capabilities as a leader other than their ability to inspire. Heck, I think libertarians should be looking for a fantastic orator because if they ever want to get serious representation on a national scale, they need to find a person who can capture the hearts and minds of Americans who have been trapped in the two party system for over 100 years.
Yes. Note to leftist academics: American exceptionalism is cool again. Talk amongst yourselves.
"And the most interesting little observation I heard last night from commentators: Feb. 2009 marks the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln, and we will have a black man from Illinois leading the celebrations. It's like Adams and Jefferson dying on the same day, 50 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence -- you couldn't make this stuff up."
Great point. Like that one much better than the Grant Park Radicals 40-year reunion one.
If you believe that we really do have significant problems as a nation right now, and a little more inspirational message from our leaders can get people motivated and working harder to solve them, this is not a bad thing.
Hey, what did Lincoln ever do for Obama's ancestors, anyway?
How is that relevant?
On the other hand it may have always been that way. I once listened to a Tom Edison-made recording of William Jennings Bryan's famous Cross of Gold speech, which reads brilliantly.
His delivery was actually terrible. I suspect it mattered less back then, since without radio or TV 99.99% of people would read rather than hear it.
You really can't admit that McCain was not as relaxed or likable in the last couple months of the campaign as he was at his concession speech? After all his pained, fake smiles? After his awkward inability to connect at the semi-town-hall debate? After months (frankly, years) of wooing the Republican base at the expense of his instincts and his moderate credentials?
You really can't admit that Obama is a strong and inspiring speaker? Only people with "partisan blinders" can acknowledge talent in a person? Funny, given your leveling of the partisan-gun, that you can only name a Republican. I think there's no question who the partisan hack here is.
And therut, with your condemnation of collectivism... the only collectivist kind of statement I recall hearing in the acceptance speech was his usual about "we are not a red America and a blue America, we are the United States of America." Is it collectivist to be a proud member of a nation, even when that proud membership doesn't suggest agreement?
Why is it that so many commenters here seem incapable of standing by a principle, even if it occasionally means praising the other side or criticizing their own?
I'm not sure how relevant it is to the quality of his Presidency, I'm hopeful Obama will surprise me but I can't escape the fact that this campaign is so superficial. This whole thing seems like a made for TV event with all the focus on the spectacle and none on what this will do for the country in the next four years.
Obama ran a very effective campaign and this race was truly won with middle America Independents voting for the non-incumbant party in response to an economic downturn. But I can't help but feel by the way this race is covered in the media that this is more like American Idol than a decision about the future of our nation - and in American Idol people only care about the competition, no one really seems to pay attention to what the winner does next.
The frightening thing about Obama is his oratory, combined with his statist policies. Combining oratory with expansionist, increasingly more powerful government is the short road to dictatorship.
Great orators with the promise to make government stronger and do more for the people include many names but none that we remember fondly.
I almost want to say McCain seemed relieved that the contest is over. Now that the pressure to seek votes and win the election is gone, the McCain of 2000 can creep back in, that's something that was distinctly missing from most of his campaign rhetoric.
As for Obama, the tone of his speech was somewhat odd, very different than the typical victory speech. The death of his grandmother probably played a part into the mood, but there was something more too.
Also, I admit I don't recall any acceptance speeches in detail prior to 2004, but I just don't recall another president making an explicit call to "those who's support I haven't won yet" in their acceptance speech.
You mean like Ronald Reagan? Wasn't he dubbed The Great Communicator?
Oh that's right -- it's great when the oratory comes from the repubs, but if a Dem is a good at it, he's compared to HItler.
I for one am glad I won't have to hear Bush talk any more about anything.
I was close enough to hear his speech, though not close enough to hear all the words. What came through clearly, though, was the cadence of his speech. I found that interesting. Unfortunately, it was a cadence that I find off-putting.
It was the sort of thing you hear in church, with a reasonably good preacher, telling us what sinners we be. It sounded like something that should be considered a 'good speech', but in reading a transcript, I found it read weakly. Not much 'there, there'.
There is certainly a difference between public speaking and public writing. I vastly prefer to put weight into the written word as the spoken word allows the unstated to go unnoted. It permits the speaker to avoid accountability. The tugs at emotion over rationality are great for motivating crowds; not so great for conveying complexity and honesty.
Public speaking ability is clearly a valuable skill for a politician. If you can't move people, you can't expect their votes, after all. But hortatory speech, particularly when it slips into the subjunctive--as it does when Obama declaims--immediately causes my skepticism to rise.
Give it a rest: My whole point was that a leader must be judged on substance alone, not style. I did not call Obama either a Hitler or a dictator. Although, if you care to review your history, you might learn that Hitler initially came to power through democratic elections during the Wiemar Republic during dire economic times, when Hitler inspired large crowds through his firey oratory blaming the economic hardships of the German people on the evil and greedy Jewish bankers and financiers. Does any of this sound familiar?
Can anyone tell me one memorable line from any of his speeches (no cheating with Google, now)? How can he be a great orator if you can't remember what he said five minutes after he said it?
The fact that your brain works in such a way is proof enough that you are not much of a student of history.
"We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states." (from his 2004 convention speech)
"We are not blue America and red America, we are and always will be the United States of America." (from his acceptance speech last night)
I've probably gotten these slightly wrong precisely because I'm working from memory.
Still don't. Nice sounding but essentially empty phrases, buzz-words and clichés don't convey ideas, so no communication takes places. Rather, that allows each listener to paint their own thoughts onto a blank sheet. And, I don't recall any instances in which Reagan allowed his staff to vilify a citizen who asked a question that resulted in an unscripted answer. Permitting that type of behavior is a type of communication -- however, I don't believe I'd classify it as "great".
The Talmudic sages noted that God picked Moses as his messenger precisely because he was a stammerer and had difficulty speaking so that no one should think he used his oratorical skills to convince the people of the truth of his message.
Really? This is pretty easy: 1) Yes we can, 2) Change we can believe in, 3) Not a red America or a blue America, but the United State of America....
Name any given "great historical orator."
How many "gems" did they have? Most never have but one or two.
But how many speeches did they give over the course of their lifetime to acquire the reputation of a great orator?
An orator that could produce, at command, a history book worthy verbal gem at command in a given speech would be truly fantastic, probably beyond any orator in history.
Obama's not that good, few, if any, have ever been that good.
I don't think having had a "gem" is necessary to be a good orator, it's certainly a measurement, but not the only one. Most people who've seen Obama speak come to the conclusion he's a skilled public speaker. I don't think one can negate that by asserting that he hasn't had a "we will fight them on the beaches" or a "all we have to fear is fear itself," or a "ask not what your country can do for you" moment.
I know that I personally am SO over that whole John Galt thing.
Freed us all from a great moral crime.
Yes I can.
(Yes, there will now follow the obligatory snarky comments about Gore. It would be more interesting, however, if people discuss the nature of concession speeches.)
JMHO, but I thought Clinton was much better than Reagan.
Twenty years ago I was driving a plumbing truck around Manassas, so I remember what it was like. The idea that a black liberal named "Barack Hussein Obama" would attract a crowd of a hundred thousand people cheering him on to the Presidency would have been absolutely inconceivable.
I would go as far as to say that solid oratorical skills are necessary (but not sufficient) to rank among our greatest presidents. I say that completely without reference to any ideological commitments that hypothetical president may possess or any political constraints he/she might face.
If McCain were as good an orator as Obama (or Reagan), this race might well have been a lot closer. If Bush were as well, his popularity might well not have been such a millstone, and it might well have been enough to swing the outcome.
Those knocking the utility of rhetoric reek strongly of sour grapes, and are dramatically de-emphasizing something that they ought to be making a top priority for any challenger to Obama in 2012 (assuming he's vulnerable) or for the vacant Oval Office in 2016. (Biden will be even older in 2016 than McCain is now, so it's unlikely that he'll be running for the office then; Obama will either switch VP's in 2012 or the White House will again have neither a sitting president nor vice president contending for it.)
I'll add, if you want me to concede that Obama is not as good of an Orator as Churchill was? Fine, I'll readily concede that. Churchill probably tops almost anyone's list of great political orators of the 20th century, and probably in modern history. There were certainly great orators from before that, but lack of record and language barriers tend to make comparisons difficult.
Yes, that's well-played. I was going to say Howard Roark. Or maybe Cirroc.
Oratory is not as morally neutral as "being well organized" because the only use of oratory is to manipulate others to do as you want. Now maybe you can manipulate them for their own good, warn them of some impending danger or give them heart to handle some terrible challenge, but its still manipulative.
One of Reagan's many outstanding lines: "Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15th."
President George W. Bush was not good and, toward the end, did not even try to communicate or, if he did, panicked people. In my opinion, his biggest failing as President.
If being POTUS was like being the Queen of England, there would not be a better President conceivable to me than Senator Obama. However, it is not. It remains to be seen whether he has the rest of the qualities necessary to be a successful President.
I thought McCain did his duty with great aplomb, and kudos to him for that. Unlike the above poster, I don't remember anything particularly memorable in Gore's (or Dole's, or Bush I's) concessions speeches, but perhaps time just treats concession speeches poorly.
I thought Kerry's concession speech was the best one he gave his entire race. Born to lose, baby!
We need your guidance, professor.
Bukake Obama?
Also, does anyone remember any lines from when Abraham Lincoln was on the campaign trail? Or Ronald Reagan, for that matter,
Well, I don't remember Lincoln's speeches. But, yes, I know some of what he said. And I do have memories of Reagan.
E.g., "Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." (Does this count?)
ABC News is reporting that he has made his first offer for a top W.H. position: Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-IL, as W.H. Chief of Staff. In something of an understatement, ABC News describes Emanuel as "sharp-tongued, sharp-elbowed, keenly intelligent veteran of the Clinton White House". So, Pres.-elect Obama's first pick is to have a partisan attack dog who earned his rep. at the Clinton W.H. as his W.H. CoS. That's change we can all believe in. It's something guaranteed to unite.
Waa waa waa all he did was ask Obama a question and then Obama put him in an internment camp. God you're a bunch of crybabies. "I'm a victim!"
[HINT: For the sarcasm impaired, that was it]
Good political speaking unites our country and helps us move together despite our differences. It helps inspire people and bring them to a common ground. After the last 8 years, this is something we need.
However, beyond this, oratory is even more important. Oratory allows a speaker to put forth a detailed discussion on an issue as a starting point for further discussion. The President can start such a discussion but in the end, it is Congress who must finish it. It is my hope that this shift will mean a movement back towards actually thinking about politics rather than simple fanboyism.
Has been for some time. Look up "Godwin's Law."
In those days, candidates didn't campaign for President. Even the Lincoln-Douglas debates for Senate were unusual. There are no lines to remember from the campaign in 1860, because Lincoln gave no campaign speeches (unless you count Cooper Union, which was before he was nominated).
I don't need or expect inspiration from presidential oratory--just as the Framers intended.
Something else we can agree on Mark: Michael Crichton has passed away. He was 66. This is very sad. He was one of the few authors who could blend science into an interesting novel.
... man holds in his mortal hand the power to abolish all forms of human poverty, and all forms of human life.
... the belief that rights come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
Let every nation know that we will pay any price, bear any burden, endure any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to ensure the survival and success of liberty.
To those peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe, struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help themselves, not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
Let us seek to uncover the wonders of science instead of its terrors.
Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.
And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country will do for you, but what you will do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what American will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man(kind?).
Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His help and His blessing, but remembering that here on earth, God's work must truly be our own.
That is sad. While I wasn't a big fan of some of his recent novels, his earlier ones were terrific to read.
I have never in my life made a Bush = Hitler comparison and I have called out those who have tried to make such parallels. Nor would you be correct in assuming that I'm some kind of raging leftist; I was a member of the Federalist Society in law school and voted for McCain. Nor would you be correct in assuming that I'm "offended" by your reference; I found it trite, pointless, baseless, hysterical, and cringeworthy, but it takes a fair amount to offend me. That said, it's possible to hold disagreements with someone and remain civilized. McCain did that last night in his concession speech. Your esteemed hosts in this corner of cyberspace have made a point of doing that. Emulating them and showing a touch of class should not be too much for ask, and even if it is too much to ask, I'm going to ask for it anyway.
Perseus: "I don't need or expect inspiration from presidential oratory--just as the Framers intended."
Strange. Throughout the past few months, quite a few conservatives were hailing Sarah Palin for her 'folksy' way of speaking, hailing it as a breath of fresh air, it's earthiness and earnestness, her charming naivete and so on.
And of course, 20 years ago, conservatives were rhapsodic about Reagan's communication skills. So I guess when a Democrat is eloquent, he is being manipulative and you don't want oratory, but when a Republican speaks well, it is to be praised by all.
Got it.
"After months (frankly, years) of wooing the Republican base at the expense of his instincts and his moderate credentials?"
Because it's a bullshit take that I've never heard from anyone who wasn't already supporting Obama anyway? Note: I'm an independent Obama voter and know several who went both ways. They agree that the claim you echo is a media-driven wedge take that served primarily as cover for those who didn't want to admit, often to themselves, why they were going Obama.
Far as I can tell, that was either race (big factor for me, along with age), not wanting to admit to their cynical friends that Obama inspired them, or feeling kind of stupid to be voting against someone because of his bonehead talk radio supporters.
McCain was not the problem. He did well considering.
We have a short attention span and will want short term results. Obama's campaign has relied on that quality in people, so it's fair to hold him to it. If in 2 years, unemployment is above what it is today, GDP is stagnant, and we haven't won in Afghanistan (whatever that means), then Obama will be a failure just like W.
Words are plentiful, but deeds are precious. I remember that line.
"we need inspiration, and the guy is pretty damned inspiring.
I don't need or expect inspiration from presidential oratory--just as the Framers intended."
So... they intended to dictate the appropriate level of inspiration the citizenry might draw from Presidential oratory for all time? Interesting theory.
Here's one from Washington:
"There is no power on earth that can neutralize the influence of a high, simple and useful life."
- Booker T. Washington
"If it does nothing else, it gets Emanuel out of the House."
Whoa, what gives? Too many bluedoggies for your taste? He's long been one of my favorite D's.
Was Lincoln ever in Kenya?
McCain did abandon many of his moderate credentials in order to pander to the GOP base. For example, making nice with this "Agent of Intolerance".
They certainly tried their best to severely restrict any use of popular oratory by the president. See Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency.
So I guess when a Democrat is eloquent, he is being manipulative and you don't want oratory, but when a Republican speaks well, it is to be praised by all. Got it.
Could you point out a single comment that I have made indicating that I expect and/or praise regular popular oratory by presidents, or are you merely indulging in your own bit of demagoguery trying to portray me as a party hack?
I hope you'll be reporting those voters who "went both ways" for voter fraud. We can't have people voting twice in an election just because they're indecisive.
I guess Lincoln did prevent Obama's ancestors from owning slaves, and that that freed them from being morally criminal, but somehow I don't think that was the original intention.
They asked.
The country answered "Kill VC."
(Not a bad idea, really.)
Being as witty as I am is a heavy cross to bear. Thank you for your words of support, my brother.
Why would the country want us to kill the Volokh Conspiracy?
Yep. Especially in the leadership ranks.
If they were slaveholders (I have no idea), then I'm sure it was part of the original idea. Even if they were not, Lincoln certainly recognized slavery as a shared moral stain on all Americans. Eliminating it couldn't undo that stain, of course, but it could put a terminus on "the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil".
The fact that his chief of staff was a fromer Freddie Mac board member and staunch supporter of Freddie and Fannie during his service in Congress tells you a lot about the kind of change we are in for.
This is very true and one of the reasons McCain lost the election when people saw how he responded when the residential real estate bubble burst.
On the other hand, Obama passed that test as he did during the Russia-Georgia brouhaha when he opted for calmness or McCain's beligerence.
The fact that his chief of staff was a fromer Freddie Mac board member and staunch supporter of Freddie and Fannie during his service in Congress tells you a lot about the kind of change we are in for."
Bush earned his low regard which is shared by 71% of the population.
When has Obama's oratory had any substance let alone seriousness? "We are the ones we have been waiting for"? "Yes we can"? "Change"? It's all gibberish.
Well, that meets the requirement of /remembering/ a line. But do really think it is a particularly /memorable/ line?
Sorry, but if I got any more sex or had any more money, they'd send me to Hell on a scholarship.
He mentioned Apollo. Total times in my life I've heard a leftie mention Apollo: zero. Note: JFK was shot by a leftie. He was a liberal.
Very memorable for me.
Also his list of American Ideals: Democracy, Liberty, Opportunity, Unyielding Hope.
Memorable: no equality.
"I hope you'll be reporting those voters who "went both ways" for voter fraud."
I'd make a joke here, but I'm feeling sad for Dale Carpenter and friends in Cali.
However, I would expect the senator and former lawyer will provide many many great speeches during his time in office.