Image via Wikipedia
A recent post from Robert Hruzek about the King James version of the Bible got me thinking about eloquence, and how it seems to be disappearing from the public square. Many attribute its decline to the Internet. Conversational style, acronyms, and emoticons rule the Web, and the Web is our dominant communication medium.
Is the Web killing eloquence, or is it something else? And as eloquence makes its slow but steady departure, are we are losing something in the process, something deep and subtle and vital?
Leadership by Example
It could be that George W. Bush is the least eloquent president America has ever seen. By comparison, Bill Clinton was a veritable Cicero, although in reality, he was mainly glib. Ronald Reagan had moments of eloquence -
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
And we have to go all the way back to John F. Kennedy to find his match -
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
Go back further and recall the astounding eloquence of Winston Churchill, the man whose words were so instrumental in saving us from the death grip of Nazi Germany.
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.
And what about these electrifying words from Franklin Roosevelt?
This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.
Had President Bush spoken words like these after 9-11, we would be living in safer and more unified world today. I am convinced of it.
Our forefathers had the Lincoln-Douglas debates. We have Congressmen and Congresswomen hissing and snarling at each other like a herd of cats. And back in the day, politicians were eloquent even in their snarling.
Lincoln once ridiculed his general staff with this executive order: “Find out what brand of whiskey he’s [Ulysses S. Grant] drinking and send a case to each of my generals.”
Theodore Roosevelt said, “When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer ‘Present’ or ‘Not guilty.’”
Heard anything like that on FOXNews lately?
Making Big Ideas Sound Small and Small Ideas Sound Big
Back to the present, it seems to me President Bush is the opposite of eloquence. I think he is a serious man, a man of honor, good intention, and big ideas. Yet he somehow has a way of making big ideas sound small and petty. It’s no surprise that Barak Obama is an appealing candidate. After eight years of tongue-tied leadership, we thirst for eloquence. And Mr. Obama is often described as eloquent.
But I don’t see it; not yet, anyway. Mr. Obama is not President Bush, but he is not eloquent, either. Instead, by my lights anyway, he is a man who makes small ideas sound big. Tax the rich. Our time is now. Life isn’t fair. Change.
That’s my favorite — “change”. It furiously begs the question, what kind of change? Demanding change in and of itself is meaningless, unless you’ve ordered a Hamburger Happy Meal and paid for it with a $100 bill.
Making Big Ideas Sound Big
No, eloquence is the ability to make big ideas sound big. Eloquence is what fires the imagination and lifts the soul. Some people today laugh at those corny movies from the 1940’s. They say nobody ever talked like that. That’s the beauty of it. The characters spoke the way we would if we could. They took the inexpressible feelings in our hearts and gave them life in words.
So what does it take to be eloquent? It takes the wisdom to recognize a big idea, the audacity to own it, the clarity to convey it, and the passion to write it in our hearts.
Which brings me back to Robert Hruzek and the King James version of the Bible. I seem to remember a passage where a big idea, government, was put in the context of an infinitely larger idea, in a way that shook the world, and all in the span of 17 words.
And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.
And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.
And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:
Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?
But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
Show me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar’s.
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.
And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marveled at his answer, and held their peace. (Luke 20, 19-26)
Our political leaders cannot be expected to reach supernatural heights of eloquence. But oh, how I wish they would try.
Well put, Brad! But I think the problem is we’re expecting perfection – from an imperfect system (political systems, that is). Alas, one has only to give a cursory glance at politics the world over to see where that’s headed!
Hmmm… methinks you’ve inspired yet another post… stay tuned!
Hi Robert, Perfection would be nice, but I’d settle for much less. To achieve even that much, we ought to strive for perfection.
Couldn’t agree with you more, Brad. I’m afraid politicians, rather than modeling the highest standards, are now going for the lowest they can possibly get away with. Sigh.
Take the upcoming Prez race (please!) How many people, when you get right down to it, are going to vote for a) the one they dislike the least, b) the Republican or Democrat one because simply because they’re, you know, Democrat or Republican, or c) the black guy “because he’s black”?
What a difference true eloquence would make! Not just words, but eloquent ideas as well! Sure miss those.
Fabulous post. But, was Lincoln ridiculing his staff with that statement? I thought that was in response to Grant doing so well as General, that he wanted the rest of his military leaders to do as well–and that, maybe it was because of the whiskey?
Deb, I think Lincoln was saying Grant could general better dead drunk than the others could stone cold sober.
Brad, I’ll have to say that Barak Obama is highly eloquent and charismatic. I love his style. He’s a great model of what you advocate.
Robyn, charismatic, yes. Eloquent? I’m not convinced. But I hope you are right, because there’s a lot riding on him.
Great post.
You’re kind towards our current WH occupant. Personally, I’d prefer a WH occupant who can speak in complete and grammatically correct sentences, who can make a small idea seem grand than one whose grammar reveals his true nature and turns grand ideas into small, petty, self-serving strategies.
The lack of eloquence crosses all generations, demographics, income levels, partisan politics, network news channels and PDA preferences. So, it can’t be the internet’s fault.
It’s the sign of society’s collective stresses that force us into myopic lives that leave little time for grander visions. And opens the doors for those to exploit this gap in our lives.
Zane, Thank you for visiting Word Sell & commenting. Your point about stress and lack of vision is a very good one. Along with stress is the incredibly fast pace of life these days, even when stress is not in the picture. I suspect you are right that the Internet is more a symptom than a cause.
Brad, what a beautiful and truthful post. Somewhere along the way we became complacent. We wanted leaders to “meet us on our level” rather than inspiring us to rise to higher levels. We reset the bar a little lower so that everyone could reach it and over time eloquence disintegrated into debauchery.
Thanks Karen. You make a good but somewhat depressing point. How can this state of affairs change, do you think? I’m not sure it can change.
Brad, it is depressing but I do think it can change and I think we all have the opportunity to take part in it. We simply stop accepting the status quo and demand a higher standard. We can shake others out of complacency by alerting them that they don’t have to settle for this standard. James Dobson once said that a family impacts a community, a community impacts a city, a city impacts a state, and a state impacts a nation. I think that one voice does indeed make a difference, and that my friend is hope!
Karen, sometimes things have to get worse before they get better, to shake off the complacency. In that sense the economic hardships we’re grappling with may be exactly what lead us to better days.
Brad, that is my hope. However, we must be careful that we continue to be discerning and are not making choices out of desperation that we will later regret. All change is not good change. Hey, didn’t you write a post on that?
Karen, You should run for president, for real. You’re making a lot of sense. “All change is not good change” is a running theme for me, actually. I’ve touched on it often, as I think you have, too.
LOL! Thanks Brad! I am passionate about social issues and think I can do more good by putting action to my words as a citizen. Have you ever considered running for office?
Of course, the speeches took place months after you wrote this post, Brad, but I found President Obama’s speech the night he was elected and his inaugural address to be moving, for me moving to the point of tears. Both were monumental events in the history of our country, and I found him compelling and powerful: a man fully able to match the meaning of the moment with his words.
If you remain unconvinced of his eloquence, or at least its occasional peeping out from under the podium, it would seem to me that you may be seeking more than there is in any of us to offer.
My point has nothing whatsoever to do with his policies or strategic decision-making prowess. Well-intentioned, smart people can debate those–and will–for years to come. Right now, I’m curious to know if your opinion of Obama’s ability to speak eloquently has changed since a year ago.
Thanks, Brad!
Hi Rick, Interesting question. Now that Obama is actually in charge, he’s certainly had to do more than toss of pandering cliches. (Sorry, I’m not a big fan, but I can see the attraction.) Whether a big, new vision is taking shape, I don’t know. On the one hand, he sounds more like a centrist, but on the other hand the general direction of his administration is extremist, taking us into uncharted depths of debt and federal intervention. So I guess more than anything, I’m confused and uncertain, so by my own definition, he’s not striking me as eloquent. What are your thoughts?
I’m guessing, Brad, that “not a big fan” might be somewhat of an understatement.
From how you define eloquence, it would seem that it is not within the realm of possibility.
From my own perspective, unless one happens to be Rush Limbaugh who is absolutely certain all the time, about any topic you might name, all of us are uncertain at some level as we sail these uncharted waters.
I don’t pretend to be prescient and thereby able to see what is coming down the pike, but I can say for a fact that our current president’s critics have given him less opportunity than his predecessor was allowed eight years ago to lead in the beginning of his term minus the squabbling to which our legislative bodies seem to devolve.
Even the worst of marriages typically start with a honeymoon longer than Obama’s has been. Not that it would have lasted until now, but that it would have at least lasted out the week of his inauguration.
When was the last time you saw a departing vice president openly critical of the new administration within a matter of a few months? That’s an audacity demonstrated which gave me pause. Unprecedented, but not surprising behavior from Dick Cheney which I think even the leaders of his own party were put off to hear.
As I said in my earlier comment, well-intentioned and thoughtful people will debate the issues which are arising in how Obama has managed his first six months in office, along with the ones which will arise in the next six, at which point he will be all of 25% of the way into his term of office.
His challenges are so many and so large that I am grateful for the support he has at home, for his apparent good health, and for an evident strong will. I honestly don’t think John McCain would have lived out his term when one considers the enormity of the task, and if that scenario didn’t scare the dickens out of people who voted for him, they didn’t connect the dots.
Not that I am particularly excited at the possibility of Joe Biden sitting behind the desk in the oval office, but at least the chances of that happening are demonstrably smaller than to see soon-to-be former governor Palin in that seat had McCain won.
Looping back to where we started, my contention is a simple one: I contend that no person could be elected president of this nation and come to his inauguration day with an approval rating so ridiculously high without possessing the skill of a great orator. Clearly, America craved it, and he delivered.
And, that’s an opinion! We all can have as many of those as we can fit in our opinion carry-on.
My feeling is that eloquence is about moving the listener, inspiring and lifting the spirit, displaying a grace and confidence in the use of the language.
I appreciate you offering a calm description as to why you don’t find our president a compelling and eloquent speaker, Brad. I’m fine with agreeing to disagree on this one.
Hi Rick, No doubt there will be lots of disagreement on this, but that’s fine – we all come at this from different places. For me eloquence is not so much a question of certainty as the ability to make big ideas sound big. Churchill had an idea of saving Western civilization from the clutches of evil. JFK had an idea of conquering space. Reagan had an idea of defeating communism. I’m not seeing the big ideas now. And if you think I’m being too tough on Obama, please let me add that in my view the Republicans are offering decidedly less eloquence and vision. In fact I would go so far as to say we have a vacuum of vision in this country right now, a lust for immediate gratification and an aversion to contemplating consequences. If that’s true – and you probably disagree – then I still would not blame Obama or Congress for it. What are our leaders if not a reflection of us?
Brad, you certainly nailed it: the only folks available to lead us were just one of us right up until election day! To expect anything more than an accurate (in human form) depiction of where we are as a species would be misplaced expectation.
In my mind, Obama’s big idea was to run in the first place. I remember seeing his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. My wife was watching, too, and we both were blown away. We even made the point to each other that we needed to remember his name. Clearly, that became unnecessary soon enough.
What is missing for me is the acknowledgement that it is always the man, the circumstances, and the flow of events from the time the two come together which allows the sort of Big Idea you speak of. Churchill was a discarded and disgraced politician until Chamberlain so messed things up that the Brits were willing to give Churchill another shot.
Kennedy benefited from living in a time when a politician could get away with a great deal of personal information staying private. He would never have been elected if the electorate was aware of how serious his back injury was, not to mention his other health challenges and his behavioral ones.
Reagan came on the scene as the Communist system, at least as ruled by the Soviets, was decaying from the root. He helped push it over, but it was rotten enough for him to get the job done without nearly the struggle it would have been 30 years earlier.
Remember our recent discussion on civil discourse, Brad? We spoke on JJL about the potential to disagree without becoming disagreeable. It is a skill seriously lacking in today’s world. Today, the least indication of disagreement becomes name calling and demonizing and declaring the other to be THEM, much different and unacceptable to US.
I’m not pointing fingers, just as you are not, Brad. I see it on both sides of the political spectrum if the worst at either extreme end. I see it from senior officials of our own government and from wild-eyed commentators, again from both extremes.
It doesn’t matter what tactic is employed to solve the crises of the world today as long as this sickness of division and dehumanization goes untreated.