“Begin low, start slow, rise higher, catch fire!” From my 1935 course in public speaking, I remember that formula for oratory. No fire, no conflagration, no change. Lectures may inform the mind, but it takes oratory to move the heart, motivating to action.
In the history of American rhetoric, the Lincoln-Douglas debates stand out for massive public attention and for consequences, including Lincoln’s presidency. People got to hear each oration only once as the opponents traveled from place to place. The power was more in print than in presence: many hundreds of newspapers carried every word.
Poor Hillary and Barack! Millions hear their rubber speeches (slightly stretched for each occasion) many times, boringly many times; and few read and ponder their words. That is the setting for this “On Faith” question:
“The percentage of voters who find Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama ‘honest and trustworthy’ is declining as the campaign wears on. Why? From a moral standpoint, how important is this quality in a president?"
1.....The candidates are worn down if not out, and from week to week it’s taking greater effort to “catch fire.” The effort shows: the public has become aware of the strain on the candidates, who consequently seem insincere, dishonest, untrustworthy. In the theater, actors must work themselves up night after night. But there’s the problem:
play-acting is expected in the theater, but is suspected on politicians’ campaign trails.
2.....While all responsible orators (including preachers) give some attention to the anticipated effects of their oratory, candidates for political office must design their speeches not only to communicate their vision but also to accumulate votes. While massaging their base, they must attract other constituencies and distract attention from their rivals. Simply speaking one’s mind, without arithmetic calculation of support, would cancel the enterprise, rendering one “unelectable.”
But not simply speaking one’s mind—while trying to appear to be doing so--opens one to the charge of disingenuousness, dishonesty, and therefore untrustworthiness.
3.....If the public is going to “catch fire” enough to vote, the candidates must address themes already hot in the public’s jumble of fears and hopes. Obama and Clinton must deal with these themes even though they may believe that certain other themes are of greater importance and urgency. Working up enthusiasm for the less important themes is an artifice the public can see through or at least feel. Is a person who makes this adjustment “honest and trustworthy”?
4.....We need a president we don’t deserve, a president morally superior to the American people, more “honest and trustworthy” than the voters. Here is a hopeful hypocrisy: while the virtue of truthfulness-honesty-trustworthiness has declined in the American populace, we the people judge candidates for office by this standard.
Democracy is unworkable without it. It’s central in the American heritage of Bible and Enlightenment, and essential to the American hope for all people.
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
