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.
