The president = "just a bunch of words."
"...But, I think that rhetoric can change the world," she said.
A girl in the hall, who I consider one of the most intelligent in my class, said this in defense of Obama to my friend, the skeptic. This friend, the man who equates his religion with his political values, replied that though this be true, he will always vote on principle and never because he just likes someone for what they say. Substantive, always substantive.
"I'm waiting to see when he actually does something before I can tell if he is good or not." Do something? True, speech-giving is a different action than jogging, cooking, and fighting wars. But it is an action nonetheless.
I feel that political promises versus words of direction are hard to distinguish for most Americans. This makes sense, since they are often intertwined. People have come to rely on the evidence of executive programs, military deployments, treaty signings and stamped bills to prove that a president is "doing something."
But, shall we not consider giving credit where credit is due? Granted, it is very difficult to track the impact that a rousing speech can have, or the results of new found confidence in self and country instilled by words, but I think the effects are real and profound.
Maybe people stood up and decided to build something instead of thinking about their problems because the nation's leader's rhetoric pushed them there. We can't determine the effect of a vision that legislators, law students, lifeguards, and librarians alike invested in because someone told them where to look.
"He's just words." Just words? What changes have you made when your church leader spoke to you with Godly persuasion? What do soothing words do to put together a broken day?
Considering the rules of rhetoric, perhaps no one can identify any ethos to give sway to our president's words. But, his experience aside, I feel that we can't underestimate a positive impact inaugural words can have. When is the last time you heard those ideas communicated in such a way? Do we really think, ethos aside, that those in earshot are not affected? This indirect way of making things happen seems almost too ideal to me. Contrast one man's grunt and labor on behalf of a nation to make something happen vs. one man's words moving a lot of people to do a lot of action. Seems more efficient to me. I can respect a leader who can do that.
Words represent ideas and ideas are what we build our lives, nations, and faith on. Now, President Obama did not speak from Sinai. But, I appreciate that "rhetoric can change the world." What we say and how we say it and the hope we can infuse in others' hearts - that can have the sort of impact that stats and news reports may never reveal. What really does a president do but execute with his words? Words are his tool and I pray, literally, that he will wield them wisely.
10 comments:
It's a blessing to have a leader capable of healing and motivating with words. I hope he can maintain that power.
brilliantly stated. amen, sister.
ah, but where does the power of the words lie? certainly part, if not most, of the power of a speech is based on the assumption by the hearer that the ideas of the man or woman are backed up by similar actions.
we listen to the prophet because we know their lives mirror their words (more or less). people are moved by obama because they believe his actions will follow. if the actions don't follow, the words will not only lose their power, they will be turned in the opposite direction. instead of a positive effect, their will be a negative, not just neutral, effect.
and that's all
well said. i don't understand why people don't get that. but i'm a word-monger.... i appreciate a good speech, a good essay. and i also think obama's got ethos. doesn’t the fact that he can communicate a unifying message to the masses lend credibility? i think that's what you're saying, jan.... anyway, i'm tired of all the doomsayers and naysayers... all the people that criticize an infant administration despite the renewing spirit of this election. why are we waiting for the next catastrophe instead of rushing the deck? part of obama's inaugural speech mentioned the need for everyone to share the load. we've lived too long in the i've-got-mine society. i'm physically sick from hearing people (religious conservatives, ironically) call for the poor and destitute to be more accountable for their bad business investments, and poor education. 'government shouldn't bail them out, it's their own fault. be accountable.' seriously? lend a hand my fellow christians. we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers. excuse the digression. i guess my point is: i'm extremely liberal because i believe people deserve better. and i'm glad obama's in the captain seat and can formulate a cogent message. (i clearly have some built-up irritability from previous discussions). peace.
I would like to point out to all that this is the first time since her first blog that Jana used caps. Now what could that mean?
I loved this entry. And I also liked what Skinny said, whoever he/she is.
i agree with skinny too, whoever s/he is. :) it sounds like there is a reliance factor here to consider. but, i guess to clarify my point: words are not just promises that a president says and then does. the words i'm referring to are the words that make OTHER people move. this has nothing (yet) to do with obama's actions. rather, it is giving credit to what he can actually, literally accomplish through rhetoric.
though i love being inspired to action by a good speech, and believe that words can be powerful instruments in accomplishing both good and evil designs, i really just wanted to echo Am's digression. life says there must be poor. so the poor suffer so the rich don't have to. and their reward is...abasement? not fair.
btw Jana, you might beat me in scrabble, probably boggle too. but the jury is still out on scattegories...i'm pretty good. seriously though, i hope someday i'm able to express my thoughts so impressively.
there are a couple of ways to measure ethos. there may be a derived ethos, meaning what type of impression someone has of you based on how you speak (their measurement of your character) though they have no previous knowledge of your background/qualifications. i don't think we have this with obama. we've heard him speak before. we know his educational background. we know his familial roots. we know how he held his senate seat. and, we know how he ran his campaign. maybe none of those are impressive, so his ethos is weak for you. but, he doesn't need an entire term of presidency to establish ethos with his listeners.
He has already established a powerful ethos, and you're right; it's based on more than speech. I repent of my words of cynicism and doubt.
Post a Comment