Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Barack Obama's Smart Speech "A More Perfect Union":

Did It Reveal Him To Be Too Intellectual To Be President?
By JOHN W. DEAN

By way of disclaimer, I do not have a favored candidate in the 2008 Democratic nomination contest. But I do appreciate the new (or perhaps simply long-forgotten) and higher levels to which Senator Barack Obama is taking political discourse. His historic speech on race this week, for example, was as smart as they come.

There was a time in this country when political debate was actually rather sophisticated, but that was long ago (for as mass media grew, the level of debate went down). Only time will tell, however, if Obama's powerful speech was also politically smart.

Obama Speech Was Frank, Direct, and Intelligent - But Was It Pitched to Too Advanced an Audience?

With his speech addressing race in America, Obama has done something that few politicians are willing to do: speak with compelling intellectual honesty. Rather than fuzzy-up difficult and troubling questions about race, he confronted them directly. Rather than avoiding issues that are typically ignored, he brought them forward for public discussion. Most strikingly, he did this with nuance, great tact, and conspicuous intelligence.

Many commentators were struck by the level of erudition Senator Obama employed in his speech. For example, Newsweek's Howard Fineman asked, "Did the blockheads understand it?" Not wanting to sound elitist, Howard quickly added that of course, everyone is a bit of a blockhead. I do not know if everyone understood the speech or not, but I do know that it is a pleasure to have a candidate running for the highest office in the land who is not only not trying to pretend to be dumb and inarticulate but rather willingly showing he is, in fact, smart as hell.

Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech was not unlike his insightful and somewhat erudite books - Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope - with one large exception: Relatively few people will read Obama's books but many have been (or may be) exposed to his historic speech.

a speech by measuring it with the
Flesch-Kincaid test, which is found on the Tools/Options menu of Microsoft Word. This widely-employed measurement device determines the degree of difficulty of the written (and spoken) word.

Enterprising linguists and others have applied the test to a wide variety of material. For instance, the folks at
youDictionary have tested the inaugural addresses of presidents. They discovered that no president since Woodrow Wilson has come close to delivering speeches pitched at a 12th grade level. Bush II's first inaugural address was at a 7.5 grade level, which ranked him near Eisenhower's second address (7.5), Nixon's first (7.6), LBJ's only (7.0), and FDR's fourth (8.1). Clinton's two addresses, by contrast, scored at the 9th grade level (9.4 and 8.8 respectively).

I tested Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech and it scores at a 10.5 grade level, which by current standards is in the stratosphere. But maybe he was being too smart to win the presidency.

Republicans Have Dumbed Down the Presidency

Hillary Clinton - who is every bit Obama's intellectual equal - is increasingly running against his eloquence, and claiming that eloquence is all he has and that he is too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief and solve real-world problems. During and since the Ohio and Texas primaries, I've noticed that Senator Clinton has been showing less and less of her own conspicuous wonkiness and brain-power, a strategy that seems to be working to her advantage.

Senator Clinton's new populism has not become anti-intellectual (yet), but she surely knows that her husband hid his intelligence during his presidential campaigns, playing up his good ole boy roots rather than his Yale/Oxford credentials. Savvy Democrats understand they cannot win the White House by appearing smarter than their GOP opponent.

This is not a cynical observation, but rather a factual one. Republicans have spent the past half century dumbing-down the American presidency, for it has helped them win the White House Colleen Shogan,
wearing her political scientist hat, has assembled epigrammatic case studies demonstrating the effectiveness of the anti-intellectualism of Republican presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.

For example, when Dwight Eisenhower ran against Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson (in 1952 and 1956), Eisenhower ignored the fact that he had been first in his class at West Point and president of Columbia University.

Meanwhile, his surrogates portrayed Stevenson as an "egghead" intellectual, which was untrue but easy to do given Stevenson's remarkably eloquent speaking style. (In fact, Stevenson had flunked out of Harvard Law School, although he later graduated from Northwestern Law School.) In office, too, Eisenhower governed with a "hidden hand," continuing to hide his intelligence.
Reagan was seen as an "amiable dunce," and history is still not sure if his Alzheimer's condition took hold well before he left office. Yet his collected letters demonstrate more thoughtfulness and policy savvy, at least earlier in his life, than many suspected. George Bush reminded Yale students when visiting his alma mater that "to the C students - I say, you, too, can be President of the United States." In contrast, rival John Kerry's campaign (mistakenly it now seems) had taken pains to portray him as highly intelligent - yet Kerry's Yale grades were just as weak as Bush's. The putative GOP nominee for 2008, John McCain, follows in the Republican tradition of anti-intellectualism, as the fifth man from the bottom of his Naval Academy graduating class.

Increasingly, conservatives seek to characterize liberals as latte-drinking, white-wine sipping, Volvo-driving, intellectual elitists with whom no real American would want to spend time, for they are too smug and superior to truly understand others outside their circle. Conservatives may appreciate intelligence but not intellectuals and their kind, and as the Republican Party has become more conservative, its anti-intellectualism has become more pronounced. The reason: It wins elections. From the story.


4 comments:

airJackie said...

Yes Senator Obama's speech was facts and truth. But America isn't interested in facing the truth or the facts. The Minister's words were correct. We did killed 1 million Japanese with the Atom Bomb and I have the 1945 paper to prove it. Yes my Dad save the news papers of that day Americans have chosen to forget. Today we have killed over 1 million Iraqis while they slep slept in their beds when the US Bombs hit. Facts how the Military sent 56 Bombs but only 5 hit the target as Rummy said stuff happens. We take pride in killing and now even torturing and raping men/woman/children. Until we look in the mirror and see we are worse then our enemy things will get worse. America and the White House hide behind the words God, Religion and Christian while committing more Evil then those of the pass. We have now turned on each other because this is how Satan works. America has become the Sodom and Gomorrah of today as people just follow like sheep.

Anonymous said...

Yes Obama has more intelligence and charactor than the whole administration we have now.
And the latest news is Obama is some distant cousin of Brad Pitt and Hilary is some distant relative of Angelina Jolie. Where do they did this stuff up........and why aren't they digging McCains distant relatives? Maybe Hannity? Coulter? Oreilly?

KittyBowTie1 said...

Well, O'Reilly and Kristol are probably some distant relative of Imus.

SP Biloxi said...

And that mean Kittybowtie that you are distant cousins of Frisky,
Morris, or Socks? ;-)