April 15, 2004
THE WINNING TEAM:
Presidents as communicators in wartime: For some, Bush's blunt style conveys clarity. Others see it as simplistic. (Linda Feldmann, 4/16/04, CS Monitor)
President Bush's rhetorical style - blunt and unelaborated, frustrating to some and comforting to others - exacerbates the polarization that is a hallmark of the 2004 campaign, political analysts say. And at a time of high uncertainty and US casualties in Iraq, with the need to keep the American public on his side growing daily, Bush's ability to woo and persuade is being tested as never before."He makes a very convenient target, but he also makes a convenient object of adoration; it's two sides of the same coin," says Roderick Hart, an expert on political communication at the University of Texas. Professor Hart calls Bush's verbal style direct, though lacking in poetic flourish.
"He's not elliptical like Bill Clinton often was," Hart adds. "And he doesn't have that lift of the driving dream that Ronald Reagan had, which can mystify politics, sometimes productively. Bush's style does march him out ahead of the pack. And that lets people take shots at him, but also inspires people who follow him."
Of course, twenty years ago the same critics were saying that Ronald Reagan was a simpleton. Then he won the Cold War and no one could afford to admit they'd opposed him. Twenty years from now Howard Dean will be telling people how we all pulled together to reform the Middle East under that visionary leader, George W. Bush. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 15, 2004 6:50 PM
Could someone please submit one speech or utterance that Bill Clinton made that was anything but pedantic, long and insincere.
This idea that he's got soul and rhythym has got to be one the longest running myths since his presidency ended. Maybe seeing his successors, Hilary, Gore, Kerry, the other 8, and so on make his followers long for his rhetorical dribble.
I'll concede Bush is no Churchill or Reagan, but I'll take him over Clinton every day of the week.
Posted by: neil at April 15, 2004 9:02 PMI agree, Neil. I couldn't stand his speaking style. Maybe just because I couldn't stand the man, but I really think it's a huge myth that he was a great speaker.
But I've heard Hitler was a great speaker.
Not up on my bible readin', but didn't Moses have a speech impediment?
So much for glibness making greatness.
Posted by: NKR at April 15, 2004 9:44 PMHis actual intelligence/IQ level aside, I suspect Clinton got the reputation of being a smart politician simply because people kept saying he was. I can't speak for his Arkansas days, but his big speeches as President never seemed stirring, facile, or especially witty -- couple this with the fact that he achieved none of his major '92 campaign goals, even with two years of a Democratic Congress. Besides, you know the drill: when a journalist refers to a politician, it only means that said politician is a Democrat.
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at April 16, 2004 12:25 AMAgree with the above in spades.
The best analysis of Clinton's public pronouncements would be to compare them to TV broadcasters, such as Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw. Mostly an effort to convey an image of profundity, seriousness, etc. but failing to commit oneself to principles that would actually run the risk of failure.
Posted by: h-man at April 16, 2004 7:42 AMClinton was a con man, pure and simple. With his ability to put on the mask of "Jes' folks" and camouflage what he is, he reminds me of the bad guy pol in Stephen King's Dead Zone.
If Hillary hadn't kept pushing him with her own ambition (a la Imelda Marcos and/or Elena Ceaucescu), he'd probably have ended up as some minor Boss Hogg type somewhere in Arkansas -- crooked lawyer, petty crooked pol, and always chasing after nookie.
Posted by: Ken at April 16, 2004 12:46 PM