[*Note to those MYDD posters who don't like candor (and there seems to be quite a few of you): Stop reading, because you won't like what I have to say.]
When Barack Obama first faced the criticism that he has no experience and that words are cheap, he answered words give hope. Many agreed and ran to Obama's defense. His supporters maintained that Obama's rhetorical skills were noteworthy and trumped his lack of experience. More to the point, they argued that Obama's rhetorical skills trumped the life and political experience that any other candidate brought to the race. They maintained that he, like Martin Luther King, spoke from moral authority.
We knew Obama borrowed his "audacity of hope" phrase from his preacher Reverend Wright. We also understood that Obama used the words of JFK, FDR, and Martin Luther King freely. Yet,in their hearts, most Americans believed that the rest of Obama's words were authentically his; rhetoric was his strong suit after all.
It is why so many came to hear Obama speak. He awakened the yearnings of a citizenry hungry to hear a leader who understood the greatness of America and who would help us transcend the duplicity of Bush/ Cheney. We were led to believe that his rhetoric came from the inner crux of his soul, not the contriving machinations of a political machine. He would lead us to the Promised Land after eight long years under a less than honest man.
Now we have learned that much of Obama's rhetoric was first used by Deval Patrick to win his campaign in Massachusetts. It seems both men hired the services of David Axelrod,so Obama's supporters argue that the campaigns inadvertently melded. Patrick's words are now Obama's.
Obama's supporters tell us to turn the page. Purists of course aren't buying it. Since Obama never gave so much as a nod to Patrick, they are calling him a plagiarist.
Both Aristotle and Quintilian argued the value of ethos in public speaking. A speaker's ethics they argued was paramount. Quintillian stressed the point that rhetorical excellence was "the good man speaking well," because a speaker's ethics affect his/her credibility and often speak more loudly than words. Emerson echoed this sentiment when he wrote: "What you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say."
I cannot turn the page. I cannot forgive Obama's campaign for playing political games with an electorate yearning for change after the moral lowlands of the Bush presidency. Our young follow Obama like the Pied Piper, because we crave hope. Compatriots chant Obama, because we want our reputation in the world restored, our soldiers home, our homeland safe, the dollar restored,and most of all the lying and lack of ethics of elected leaders to end.
All the while, Axelrod and Team Obama have been playing us like fools. We now must face the consequences. We are at a crossroad; it seems Obama lacks both substance and the ethos necessary for moral authority. Where do we go from here?
|
|
|
Permalink :: 23 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
