| Author |
Message |
    
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 645
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 3:29 pm: |     |
September 24, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Candidates, Seen From the Classroom
By STANLEY FISH
CHICAGO
In an unofficial but very formal poll taken in my freshman writing class the other day, George Bush beat John Kerry by a vote of 13 to 2 (14 to 2, if you count me). My students were not voting on the candidates' ideas. They were voting on the skill (or lack of skill) displayed in the presentation of those ideas.
The basis for their judgments was a side-by-side display in this newspaper on Sept. 8 of excerpts from speeches each man gave the previous day. Put aside whatever preferences you might have for either candidate's positions, I instructed; just tell me who does a better job of articulating his positions, and why.
The analysis was devastating. President Bush, the students pointed out, begins with a perfect topic sentence - "Our strategy is succeeding"- that nicely sets up a first paragraph describing how conditions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia four years ago aided terrorists. This is followed by a paragraph explaining how the administration's policies have produced a turnaround in each country "because we acted." The paragraph's conclusion is concise, brisk and earned: "We have led, many have joined, and America and the world are safer."
It doesn't hurt that the names of the countries he lists all have the letter "a," as do the words "America" and "safer." He and his speechwriters deserve credit for using the accident of euphony to give the argument cohesiveness and force. There is of course no logical relationship between the repetition of a sound and the soundness of an argument, but if it is skillfully employed repetition can enhance a logical point or even give the illusion of one when none is present.
The students also found repetition in the Kerry speech, about the outsourcing of jobs, but, as many pointed out, when Mr. Kerry repeats the phrase "your tax dollars" it is because he has become lost in his own sentence and has to begin again.
When he finally extracts himself from that sentence, he makes two big mistakes in the next one: "That's bad enough, but you know there's something worse, don't you?" No, Senator Kerry, we don't know - because you haven't told us. He is asking people to respond to a point he hasn't yet made and, even worse, by saying "don't you?" he is implying they should know what this point is before he makes it. As a result, the audience is made to feel stupid.
And if that wasn't "bad enough,'' consider his next two sentences. Up until now Mr. Kerry's point (insofar as you could discern one) had been that current tax policies reward companies for moving their operations overseas. But he goes on to add, "it gets worse than that in terms of choices." The audience barely has time to wonder what and whose choices he's talking about before it is entirely disoriented by the declaration that "today the tax code actually does something that's right." Excuse us, but how can getting something "right" be "worse"? It turns out that there is an answer to that question later in the speech - Mr. Kerry says that while the tax code now rewards companies that export American products, Mr. Bush wants to eliminate that good incentive - but it comes far too late for an audience discombobulated by the sudden and unannounced change in the argument's direction.
Senator Kerry, my students observed with a mix of solemnity and glee, has violated two cardinal rules of exposition: don't presume your audience has information you haven't provided, and always pay attention to the expectations of your listeners. They also felt that when he concludes by declaring that "when I'm president of the United States, it'll take me about a nanosecond to ask the Congress to close that stupid loophole," he undercuts the dignity both of his message and of the office he aspires to by calling the loophole "stupid" (instead of "unconscionable" or "unprincipled" or even "criminal"). "Stupid," one student said, is not a "presidential kind of word."
So what? What does it matter if Mr. Kerry's words stumble and halt, while Mr. Bush's flow easily from sentence to sentence and paragraph to paragraph? Well, listen to the composite judgments my students made on the Democratic challenger: "confused," "difficult to understand," "can't seem to make his point clearly," "I'm not sure what he's saying," and my favorite, "he's kind of 'skippy,' all over the place."
Now of course it could be the case that every student who voted against Mr. Kerry's speech in my little poll will vote for him in the general election. After all, what we're talking about here is merely a matter of style, not substance, right? And - this is a common refrain among Kerry supporters - doesn't Mr. Bush's directness and simplicity of presentation reflect a simplicity of mind and an incapacity for nuance, while Mr. Kerry's ideas are just too complicated for the rhythms of publicly accessible prose?
Sorry, but that's dead wrong. If you can't explain an idea or a policy plainly in one or two sentences, it's not yours; and if it's not yours, no one you speak to will be persuaded of it, or even know what it is, or (and this is the real point) know what you are. Words are not just the cosmetic clothing of some underlying integrity; they are the operational vehicles of that integrity, the visible manifestation of the character to which others respond. And if the words you use fall apart, ring hollow, trail off and sound as if they came from nowhere or anywhere (these are the same thing), the suspicion will grow that what they lack is what you lack, and no one will follow you.
Nervous Democrats who see their candidate slipping in the polls console themselves by saying, "Just wait, the debates are coming.'' As someone who will vote for John Kerry even though I voted against him in my class, that's just what I'm worried about.
Stanley Fish is dean emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
|
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 557
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
Not to mention that the confusing message he delivers changes daily. |
Guy
Citizen
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 164
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 3:40 pm: | |
Good article Mark. Not a hatchett job, instead points out why Kerry's message is not coming across. |
Michael
Real Name
Username: Michael
Post Number: 713
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
Darn it ! You beat me to it !
Great read.
I especially enjoyed
quote:Now of course it could be the case that every student who voted against Mr. Kerry's speech in my little poll will vote for him in the general election. After all, what we're talking about here is merely a matter of style, not substance, right? And - this is a common refrain among Kerry supporters - doesn't Mr. Bush's directness and simplicity of presentation reflect a simplicity of mind and an incapacity for nuance, while Mr. Kerry's ideas are just too complicated for the rhythms of publicly accessible prose?
Sorry, but that's dead wrong. If you can't explain an idea or a policy plainly in one or two sentences, it's not yours; and if it's not yours, no one you speak to will be persuaded of it, or even know what it is, or (and this is the real point) know what you are.
BINGO
|
JMF
Citizen
Username: Jmf
Post Number: 30
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
You could EASILY take the same poll on a different day, and be led in the other direction. Bush speaks very well when he has a very good speech written for him. When he has to speek on his own or answer questions, he is not very good at all.
I hope the writter watches the debates with his students and takes the same poll again.
|
Guy
Citizen
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 165
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
JMF , you are missing the point. It is the conviction of Bush in what he is saying. The students feel that Kerry is just saying words. |
JMF
Citizen
Username: Jmf
Post Number: 32
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
Guy, I get the point. The thing about this is that he is using a written speech by Bush and a Speech by kerry that he was not reading.
and this part really bothered me...
"he is implying they should know what this point is before he makes it. As a result, the audience is made to feel stupid."
He caters his speech to the crowd, You can not tell what those people were thinking.
This entire thing is off base because it is 2 differnt kinds of speaking, and reading by the class.
|
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 648
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 5:21 pm: | |
I did not post this to make the anti-Kerry crowd happy. I have the same perspective as the author--I intend to vote for Kerry, but he clearly has trouble articulating and that is a problem he must solve. At best, if he wins, it will make him less capable as a leader. At worst, it will sink him in the election.
And regarding speeches, Kerry always extemporizes. His speeches are often tightly written (by his staff) but he feels the need to add verbiage, thoughts, whole dissertations even, on the fly. Martin Luther King did this brilliantly--Kerry cannot.
A critical component of leadership (but not the only one) is the ability to clearly communicate a vision and build consensus. While I think W is poor at this, I think at this juncture Kerry is worse. |
dwllc
Citizen
Username: Dwllc
Post Number: 34
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 9:35 pm: | |
If it takes 45 minutes on the streets of Manhattan to find somebody who knows the name of the VP I would say that the vast majority are not as intellectual as most of you. Taking this into consideration would't you Keep It Simple Stupid? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2475
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 6:53 pm: | |
Keeping something simple doesn't necessarily make the leap to stupid. Shakespeare loved brevity, the Gettysburg Address wasn't very long, as were other great speeches of our time. I can't think of a long, long speech up there in the top ten, but I may be wrong.
And being intellectual is overrated. It doesn't matter how smart you are if you don't think clearly. |
Michael
Real Name
Username: Michael
Post Number: 714
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 9:43 pm: | |
But...
It is really simple . This goes to the heart of why most undecided won't vote for Kerry. And... It's something Kerry can't work on, hide, spin or
side step. It IS him .
If you can't explain an idea or a policy plainly in one or two sentences, it's not yours; and if it's not yours, no one you speak to will be persuaded of it, or even know what it is, or (and this is the real point) know what you are.
Kerry's policies are in a perpetual state of ambiguity.
No one is comfortable around someone like that.
President ? fuhgettabout it .
|
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 353
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 12:06 am: | |
I'm sorry, but that's preposterous. Passing a freshman comp class and being President of the United States are not the same thing. Kerry's plans for Iraq, the economy, health care, etc, can't be boiled down to two sentence sound bites, so we should reject them, and him, out of hand? Would someone here please summarize Bush's Iraq plan in two sentences, or point me to where he has done so?
The problem with Kerry is that people, by and large, have bought into the Republican spin about him, just as they have with Bush. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 653
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 11:57 am: | |
Madden, I have not bought into the spin. It is a reality--read the insiteful article on the front page of today's NYT. Kerry is obviously very bright, with a curious mind and an instinct to try to get his facts straight before he acts. These are important qualities I want in the President.
However, Jimmy Carter was likewise bright and thoughtful, careful and calculating. And he was not all that successful as a President (and he had a Republican Congress to deal with, as Kerry will face). Carter got too caught up in the process, instead of focusing on a clear and effective message, and then implementing it. Clinton was also a wonk, but had a killer's instinct for focus and for reaching over Congress to the public (like Reagan did, albeit without being a wonk).
Politics is at least as much an art of communication and appearance as it is an art of information processing and intelligence. Kerry needs to turn the analysis into crisp policy statements that people can rally around, and appear like a leader even when he only has part of the answer available. And he has to stay on message.
Bush leans too far the other way, and that is why we are quagmired in Iraq, stuck with a ballooning deficit. But Kerry needs a bit more of that swagger and simple (not simplistic) message. To point this out is not to be taken in by Republican spin, and does not make him less viable as a candidate--it is pointing out a reason why he is not trouncing one of the most beatable sitting presidents in recent memory. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
Bush's strategy in two sentences:
1. Lie.
2. Repeat step one. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2485
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 9:26 pm: | |
Kerry has to change who he is to win this debate. How do you change who you are if you don't know who you are to begin with?
He's so smart, despite the fact that he can't make a point, can't stick to one once he's made it, and forever searches for some person or angle or data that makes more political impact than he can make on his own because he's an empty suit waiting for someone to fill up his shoulders. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 3925
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 1:03 am: | |
I think the point about Bush's clarity is a good one. I concede that Bush carries messages more simply. He also carries simpler messages. That is appealing to Joe Average, because Joe Average doesn't want to believe that sometimes, situations are complicated.
This could be Kerry's downfall.
Every problem has a solution that is simple, clear, elegant, and wrong.
Not every issue can be understood in soundbites.
Bush's English is deplorable. He seems incapable of grasping complext concepts. When his aides tell him that there's more to the story, he shuts them up. Yet his simplicity might be what will win him the election. I guess we really do get the government we deserve. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 657
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 7:47 am: | |
Bill Clinton showed that you can start out overly wonkish and verbose and learn to hit the high points when you have to. Kerry can learn, but it may be too late.
There is nothing wrong with simple descriptions as long as they are not based on simplistic assumptions and analysis. Bush is too simplistic in his view of the world, and we are paying the price in Iraq, with a booming deficit, with no solutions to Social Security and health care. |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 576
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:50 am: | |
Kerry is clearly a poor speaker. I believe that he would not be doing as badly in the polls as he is if that where not the case. I know that he is a bad speaker because whenever I see his image on the tube while channel surfing I can only bear him for a few moments because he is such a deadly dull Dukakis disappointment, (how's that for alliteration!). Certainly it must be possible to be concise about complicated issues. Certainly it must be possible to convey passion as the driver of reason without appearing "overly emotional". A speaker needs to be able to MOVE people to something other than the next channel.
Clinton was/is a great speaker. I was quite impressed a couple months ago as I watched him speak at Riverside Church in NYC. He flawlessly delivered a long beautifully constructed speech without the use of any notes including long passages from the bible effortlessly delivered from memory. The congregation was WITH him the entire time and more importantly. - BROUGHT ALONG with him. What good is a politicain to anyone if he cannot be convincing to the people he desires to lead?
As for Bush, -well no, I won't be voting for him although I have very much enjoyed his use of the word "misunderestimated".
PS: Oil hit $50.00 a barrel today, - "Our strategy is succeeding, and we're making progress!" |
yabbadabbadoo
Citizen
Username: Yabbadabbadoo
Post Number: 87
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
More progress!!
I'm feeling safer every day.
FF |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2499
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 7:44 pm: | |
mf -- the most simplistic answer to the Social Security crisis out there is given by the democrats. It ranges from "huh?" to "well, we'll just XXX them harder!"
Isn't it better that oil is expensive and we are forced to use less? That's why the Europeans tax the hell out of it. Stop complaining.
It would take a speaker of Reagan or Clinton-esque proportions to be able to sell Kerry's various positions as both consistent and intelligent. |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 578
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
"Isn't it better that oil is expensive" -That's beautiful cjc.
Stop it! -You're making me dizzy! |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 14
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 10:59 am: | |
That is not how I decide who I'm voting for.
30 thousand dead Iraqis---
VS>
The Kerry commision investigates Iran COntra.
Or Kerry investigates BCCI---and the Bush Family connection to BCCI-coincidently-- LOL |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page