The Hollowness Behind Obama's Rhetoric
This column was written by Dean Barnett.
In his many months on the campaign trail, Barack Obama has distinguished himself as the finest orator in recent political memory. With such skills in this area, it's little wonder that Obama and his campaign have put talking on a pedestal. When Obama talks, he does great. Even his detractors can't deny it.
But there's a stark disconnect between the talking Obama and Obama the man of action. Or rather Obama the man of inaction. It says something rather profound about Obama that his most noteworthy campaign-related act to date has been to sit passively in a church pew for 20 years worth of Sundays.
There's a hollowness to Obama's rhetoric. When Obama delivered his famous (and effective) "just words" rejoinder to Hillary Clinton's barbs, the speech inadvertently revealed the emptiness of Obama's rhetoric. "All men are created equal" was indeed more than just words. It was more than "just words" because the men who signed the document that made that claim risked their lives to prove it. They backed their words up with war. In short, their accompanying actions are what made the phrase immortal. If the phrase had emanated from some effete intellectuals in a Boston drawing room who went back to being effete intellectuals after delivering their proclamation, guys like Barack Obama wouldn't be quoting them today.
The question with Obama remains exactly what actions he'll take to give real meaning to his fine speeches. Interestingly, it's not just Obama's right wing critics who have complained about the emptiness of his rhetoric. Until the left finally circled its angry wagons around Obama over the last few weeks, you could find prominent left-wing bloggers complaining about Obama's failure to embrace progressive plans on an almost daily basis.
Of course, there's a certain cleverness to the strategy of combining inspiring rhetoric with no accompanying plan for action. I thought Obama's speech after his victory in the Iowa caucuses was the finest and most inspiring political address I had ever heard. Even though I didn't feel a tingling in my leg like Chris Matthews does on such occasions, Obama surely knows that if he's reaching heartless conservatives like me with his speeches, then he's got himself a launching pad to go after all sorts of voters. Why take the chance of turning off such voters by offering plans for action that they may not like?
My problem with Obama and my fear of a potential Obama presidency is that his ostentatious plans for inaction may be more than just a clever political strategy. If you look at his record, Obama seems to lack much fondness for action. His record is littered with evidence that he's a congenital ditherer who doesn't bother to offer actions that support his words. As a Senator, Obama has talked about bipartisanship but never actually done anything of a bipartisan nature. In the Illinois state legislature, Obama had all those "present" votes.
Still more disturbing are some of the prescriptions for purported action that the Obama campaign has issued. In this month's American Prospect, Team Obama spoke with Prospect senior staffer Spencer Ackerman to outline the bones of what will be the Obama Doctrine. I know, it all sounds very butch for a dovish modern Democrat - a genuine Doctrine! But unlike the Monroe Doctrine or the Truman Doctrine or the Reagan Doctrine or even the Bush Doctrine, the Obama Doctrine mentions nothing so quotidian as backing up foreign policy aims with force.
If blustery testosterone-fueled rhetoric causes you unpleasantness, you might want to skip the following summation of what Team Obama has come up with for the Obama Doctrine:
They envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering "democracy promotion" agenda in favor of "dignity promotion," to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root.Out of an innate sense of kindness and charity, I'll overlook the contradiction between Team Obama's fierce desire to move beyond hollow sloganeering and focus on "dignity promotion." Instead, let's focus on how the Obama Doctrine isn't a plan and promise for action like all the Doctrines that have preceded it, but instead an empty piece of gobbledygook rhetoric.
It's just talk that most people will find agreeable, perhaps even noble. Practically every American supports the idea of "liberty, justice and prosperity" taking root. I bet we can even all agree that "dignity promotion," whatever it may be, is probably a swell thing.
But the real trick isn't agreeing on such basics. The real trick is enacting policies that make them a reality. If the Obama Doctrine held that President Obama would send a fleet of Navy vessels to the shores of every country where dignity wasn't being adequately promoted, that would at least be a Doctrine worthy of the name. It would be a stupid Doctrine, but at least for once Obama would be matching his rhetoric with a plan for action. As it is, the Obama Doctrine is of a piece with the rest of his campaign. It's an attractively outlined set of worthy goals unsupported by any apparent plan of action to realize those goals.
The Obama Doctrine dovetails nicely with Obama's promise to begin an aggressive round of - what else? - talking with all our enemies. Once again, no clearly expressed goals preceded Obama's promise to talk. Almost needless to say, Obama has offered no elaboration on how the talking will advance specifically defined American interests. The talking is itself the point.
Not that there's anything wrong with talking. Having a president who is willing and able to communicate as well as Obama would be a refreshing change of pace after the last seven years. The problem is Obama's apparent allergy to action. The fear isn't that Obama merely prefers talk to action, but exclusively opts for talking over acting.
Obama's racial reconciliation speech was particularly disturbing in this regard. Although it's a little implausible that Obama long ached to give a major speech on racial matters and yet only did so when his relationship with a fiery pastor began to seriously damage him politically, let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt and concede that he would like to play a constructive role in America's race relations. And yet what does he offer as his prescription? You guessed it - a conversation.
Obama has observed American race relations for years. Certainly some policy proposals have bubbled to mind. He has said some provocative stuff about our public schools, sufficiently provocative stuff that he fell into disfavor with the teacher's unions. And surely Obama has reached some conclusions about affirmative action, inner city crime and economic opportunity that would warrant a central role in his plan to move America forward on racial matters.
But focusing on such things would require political action. And it's Barack Obama's way to prefer a good conversation instead.
By Dean Barnett
©