Rhetorical Flourishes and Fizzles

Good speakers are rare. Great speakers are rarer, but rhetorical mastery should not be confused with sound principles and good ideas. We all have witnessed the nearly worshipful attention paid to Barrack Obama’s speechmaking skill when he was running for the presidency. Now that he has been in office for almost three years I assume that many of you share my vomit-in-the-mouth reaction whenever he approaches a microphone (usually every day) and engages in one of his repetitive, stammering and “uh-laden” painful addresses. His glaring weakness as a leader and his distorted priorities have demonstrated that eloquence alone is not enough for the leader of the free world---what’s left of it.

One of the more unfortunate aspects of our current political system is that people who speak well frequently say very little. Their verbal skills are directed towards disguising their true thoughts rather than revealing them. They have developed the ability to speak in “sound bite” fashion while failing to provide much detail that could open them to criticism. We citizens are somewhat responsible for the politicians developing that trait because of our short attention spans. We would rather have a brief unrefined answer than face the prospect of a long detailed explanation. As a consequence, some of our political speakers become frustrated by the short-answer format and respond with statements or ideas that may unsettle us. They have complexity and nuance to share, but mass media and our dismal listening habits combine to make their messaging difficult.

With 9 or more candidates vying for the Republican nomination we have an opportunity to compare and contrast rhetorical styles. Also, we have ample opportunities to analyze candidates’ statements for clarity and information. Each of the candidates has some unique attributes, but it is clear that some of them have either been coached or have diligently worked to hone their speaking style for the television/computer age. Others either shrug off the needed alterations for media type speaking or feel the need to thoroughly explain their positions despite the constraints imposed by the media and the audience.

To illustrate how the candidates vary with the rhetorical styles I will attempt to perform a “quickie” analysis of each of the GOP contenders. The two who have the most highly developed delivery styles in my view are Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. There is a vast difference between them, however, because Romney’s utterances for the most part are designed to minimize potential damage whereas Newt’s are directed towards innovation. Both of them are conscious of time constraints, but Newt’s professorial style sometimes causes him to drift outside the suggested time limit. Mitt’s precise and clipped answers suggest a monumental rehearsal regimen, and he sometimes fails to utilize his entire allotted time. Herman Cain’s rhetorical toolbox is fast approaching the previous two. In the early stages of the campaign he left too many unanswered questions on the table, but as he becomes more comfortable in the spotlight, his answers and statements have been more fully developed.

Rick Perry has a plain folksy delivery, but when he delivers a statement or answers a question, he appears to circle before landing the punch line. Personally, I get frustrated with this approach because I prefer to have more “meat” in the sandwich rather than a lovely garnish with a small entrée. Michele Bachmann has adopted a combative style that seems to work for short bursts of intensity but at times appears to lack thorough substance. Rick Santorum, too, has an intense speaking style that slides into passion when he is particularly concerned about a specific issue. He has not mastered the short answer and appears compelled to filibuster with his passionate delivery.

Jon Huntsman seems to be groping for a rhetorical tool that he can call his own. When he attempts to portray intensity, he appears like a professor. Gary Johnson acts as if he were extremely frustrated…perhaps justifiably so because his positions get very little media notice and minimal face time at the debates. Dr. Ron Paul has the weakest rhetorical style of the nine candidates, but he wastes no words and lacks the slick methods one would expect from someone who’s been in the political arena for more than a quarter century.

Now that I have given you my interpretation of the speaking styles of the various GOP presidential candidates, I urge you to look and listen beyond the words. Parse the sentences and the statements. Are they real, solid and substantive, or are they elegant sounding fluff? Do NOT be fooled by well-coached meaningless rhetoric. We already have one of those in the White House, and we’re trying to get rid of him. It appears that the primary season will be sooner and shorter than it has been historically. That suggests that more people may be swayed by someone who is a “good speaker.” Sound principles, honesty, consistency and integrity are far superior criteria for choosing someone who could be our next president. Go past the words…..to the heart. It is your responsibility.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue. & Wed., 6-7:00pm 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

    

Good Grief!

Good grief! Have I stumbled into a lousy re-make of “Groundhog Day?” As I view the GOP debates and listen to the “informed” pundits, I recall that I’ve heard all this garbage before. This movie should be titled “The Lesser Evil Again.” For more than 150 years the two old parties have followed similar paths at differing speeds to lead us to the same result….socialist state followed by fiscal collapse followed by either violent anarchy or tyrannical totalitarianism. Yet, the pundits, our “leaders,” and even some frightened constitutional activists plead with us to accept the lesser evil because another path would lead to loosing. Here’s a news flash: winning with the lesser evil guarantees that we lose…not just the party, but everyone loses.

The most predictable behavioral aspect of American voters, self-identified conservatives and progressive-leftists alike, is their predictability. They continually select lesser candidates in order to avoid losing to a worse candidate while sacrificing principles for short-term political gain. Clearly, our elitist statist leadership is exactly what we deserve because we appear steadfastly committed to handing them the reins of power. We are engaged in a march toward national suicide because we continue to promote and elect career politicians whose lack of political courage places their fingers on the trigger of our demise.

Most of us prefer the familiar over the unfamiliar. Our tendency is to continue repeating our behaviors until circumstances force us to change. For example, during the past several election cycles U.S. voters have allowed the mass media to define the candidates and design the criteria for choosing. Media buzz-words such as “extreme,” “frontrunner,” “electability,” and “isolationist” are sprinkled through the broadcast or story to tilt the coverage and audience perceptions. By choosing which candidates to vet and which elements of their pasts merit reporting, the media construct the public images of the various candidates. Many of us who consider ourselves to be politically aware and astute, nevertheless, swallow the media meme, and we choose our preferred candidates based on the media definition of “electable.”

A recent Battleground Poll suggests that roughly 55% to 60% of the voters in the United States self-identify as “conservative.” Any discerning observer would view that number skeptically because the term “conservative” roams all over the philosophical, ideological and political map. Many conservatives truly desire a constitutional government that confines the federal beast to its enumerated powers. Others appear to be “OK” with a massive federal apparatus that wanders far beyond the Constitution as long as private-sector markets remain unhindered. Another group of conservatives are focused on lifestyle issues and view the federal machinery as a force for coercing and limiting certain personal choice. It seems, therefore, that a conservative majority of voters in the 55% to 60% range is meaningless. Divided priorities, “winning over principles,” and accepting media definitions merge together to create a majority comprised of a collection of poorly defined or articulated minorities.

It appears that while many profess to desire change…especially a return to constitutional principles…they are unwilling to fully commit to candidates who have the principles and the courage to implement the new direction. Their attitudes are similar to the MBA graduate who dreams of becoming CEO but is afraid to leave the comfort of the mailroom in order to enhance his career. So-called constitutional conservatives pine for principled candidates who honor ALL of the Constitution, but hesitate to vote for them for fear of “splitting the vote” or backing a possible loser. So, as a consequence, they vote for the “lesser of two evils” and elect a certain loser while insuring that the nation, too, becomes a loser. Weak-willed voters and weak-on-principle candidates are a combination that will lead to the collapse of our nation. It is impossible for weakness compounded by more weakness to withstand the tides of chaos and destruction. Despite the principles of mathematics wherein two negatives yield a positive, the opposite is true in governance.

Normally I have a good head of hair. I sometimes cut it very short to make it easier to work around the farm, but it does not qualify me as presidential material. Neither does a winning smile nor a resonant voice guarantee that one has the capacity to govern a massive nation. Many years of political service may actually be a detriment for a candidate who is committed to reform because she or he has become too familiar with the status quo. Looks, appearance or poise are not the best criteria for a political leader. Principle, character and consistency are the traits that we should seek for our elected officials.

The lesser of two evils is definitely lesser and obviously evil. We can no longer permit our nation to be in the hands of lesser types who lack a moral and principled compass. We must choose courageously if we expect our elected officials to act with courage.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tues. & Wed., 6-7pm, 1370 WSPD   www.wspd.com

Con-promise

Some things are vastly over rated. Atlantic Coast Conference football is not good enough to merit an automatic BCS (Bowl Championship Series) bowl appearance for the conference champion. Rap music is over rated. We might describe it as monotonic anti-social indecipherable blather. Certainly, “Reality TV” is over rated. It is rarely true reality and barely qualifies as television….definitely not as entertainment television. Most political compromises are over rated. They are crowned with the mantle of wise accommodation, when in fact, they do little to achieve real goals or address pressing problems. In many cases the compromise may erect barriers to a satisfactory solution. A true compromise involves two directions of seemingly equal value that are bound and trimmed to provide a satisfactory workable solution for the advocates of each path. In my personal view the critical operative word is “satisfactory.” Too often political operatives adopt a compromise merely to put off the arduous task of arriving at the best answer to a vexing problem.

Compromise is never a good option in matters of principle. Where the underlying principle is intact, compromise may be necessary regarding an amount or a time frame to reach agreement among the parties. But compromising on principle is a losing proposition. When one yields on a matter of principle, one is, in effect, admitting that the principle has no value. Negotiations become browbeating and bullying because one side recognizes that the other has surrendered the moral high ground of principle. Compromising on matters of preference is a good approach in marriage, partnerships and ad hoc social encounters. We have all witnessed amazingly bullheaded people who had a “my way or the highway” attitude about unimportant matters. We should not ever confuse that immovable personality disorder with someone who stands his or her ground for a principle. There’s a Kenny Rogers classic called “The Gambler,” and one of the verses includes “know when to hold them and knowing when to fold them.” Always “hold” for principle, but be willing to “fold” on minor matters.

Now comes the big question of the day: Are most career politicians capable of detecting the difference between a principle and “small potatoes?” Is it possible that their arrogance is so great that they view everything, or at least most things, as unworthy of defending? It must be a flaw in the psyche of most career politicians that causes them to ignore or minimize some of the most basic principles of good governance. For them “the deal is the thing,” and they can smugly approach the cameras and crow about what a difficult process they endured while arriving at a ‘solution” that “serves the best interests of the American people.” In their feeble little ego-centric minds runs the following refrain: “Whew! That’s over for now. Time for drink.” How about drinking some hemlock, Clowns? Cut the DEAL and cut outta there….that’s no way to run a country.

Many politicians run for office while professing the love and loyalty for the Constitution. They glibly discuss the Founders and the Framers as they extol the wonders of our glorious democracy…..huh? Democracy? No wonder they appear so eager to ignore principles while engaged in the business of the nation. Democracies are popularity contests. Examine any statewide issue that’s on the ballot. Advertising, posters, troops of supporters or opponents appearing on radio and television attempt to convince the voters that their position is the best one. The purpose is to amass the greatest sum of votes on Election Day. In a Republic, on the other hand, citizens elect representatives to perform two major services. The first is to represent the people of the district or state and prevent their isolation or abuse by the Federal Government or other states. The second responsibility is to thoughtfully and fairly weigh the desires of the district or state versus the overall good for the nation. Elected officials are presumed to use their calculating powers for weighing the nation-district advantage….not to support noxious and costly proposals that aid their re-election prospects but subvert what is preferable for the country. This dynamic explains the prevalence of “pork” in so many legislative initiatives. Politicians sought favor with various constituencies using “other people’s money,” without measured consideration about the impact of such appropriations on the nation’s fiscal health. All “pork” spending is compromising. “I’ll vote for yours, if you vote for mine.” Principles are absent, and we get “bridges to nowhere” and projects that should be adopted locally.

People especially political types who refuse to compromise on basic principles are usually characterized as “obstructionists.”  Their strong stance slows or stops the unprincipled compromise from going through. If the rhetoric becomes more heated, we often hear terms like “ideologue,” “extremist, “ or any number of unflattering terms designed to weaken the holdout’s resolve as well as to activate his or her constituents’ pressure. One shouldn’t bend when critical questions are being decided. Holding to principle, standing firmly with the Constitution of the United States, and weighing every vote or decision on the scales of Liberty are absolutes. There is no nearly principled stance, no almost-Constitutional position, and definitely no approximately-free approach to Liberty. The debate should never be about the wisdom of a certain absolute because they are foundational and vital for the rebirth of our republic. Any other position, any nuanced compromise of principle condemns us to the quicksand of socialism and the quagmire of irrelevancy.

Comment:    cearlwriting@hotmail.com            or            www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Heard Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s from 6:00pm to 7:00pm on 1370 WSPD, Toledo, Ohio

www.wspd.com

   

Calling Out Congress

My columns have been rather tough on Speaker Boehner and the GOP House. Several readers have forcefully reminded me that the Democrats hold the Senate and the Socialists are entrenched in the White House. They seem to suggest that I should ease up a bit because Boehner et. al do not have the absolute power necessary for implementing significant change in government practices, policies and procedures. That observation is true……….but the GOP controls the budgeting process, and can initiate legislation that the Senate may reject or the President may veto. Said legislative initiatives would create clear lines of demarcation and force the Progressives/Statists/ Lefties to defend the indefensible….their insistence that the United States drift into Third-World status because of their massive spending, borrowing and taxing schemes. If the GOP House is unwilling to force the issue again and again, the people (voters) will rightly conclude that deal-making and business-as-usual politics remain the standard practice even with a divided House and a frustrated populace.

As Libertarians, Tea Party members and conservatives who desire smaller constitutional government, lower taxes and more personal freedom, we have no impact on the statists in government. They loathe us while they fear us, and they are not about to accept our proscriptions for sound governing. The conservative members of the House GOP caucus are another matter. They are aware of the potential support or fury of our liberty coalition. It is, therefore, absolutely mandatory for us to hold them accountable…..in all ways, all the time. Already we have witnessed some slippage during the debt ceiling fiasco. Some of the newer hot shot members as well as some of the incumbents decided to follow the path of deal-making expediency rather than stand for principle. We can send a daily barrage of emails and phone to Senator Schumer’s office, and they will have no positive effect for good government. If we follow the same tactical program for a newly elected “Tea Party conservative,” he or she will be more likely to hold the line against the overwhelming tsunami of big government. If we hesitate to “call out” the newer and conservative members, then we may be chagrined to discover that they have become enmeshed in the “business as usual” trap.

Every general knows that he cannot command the opposing troops. His influence and power are limited to his own command. He must maneuver his own troops to attack or counter the weaknesses and movements of the enemy. The battle for our nation is warfare of the highest order. At stake are liberty, prosperity and our future. So far the contest has been relatively non-violent, but a government that has demonstrated that it is willing to use coercion and force may resort to extraordinary measures to preserve its power and control. This observation may sound somewhat grim, but it should alert us to the necessity for maintaining pressure on those in government who claim to be our allies for the restoration of our republic. If we back off and permit them to falter, the consequences could degrade into a scenario far worse than our persistent badgering of our affiliated elected officials. In a medical analogy….we’ll be treating the scratch to prevent the infection.

One more analogy to illustrate the importance of maintaining the heat on right-thinking politicians: when an opposing baseball player commits a mental error, our team exploits it. When a member of our team has a “brain fart, “we get on his case to insure that he has the correct mental attitude to help us succeed. Holding the opposition accountable is a pipe dream. Our influence is best used to support and sanction our alleged compatriots in office. Firing off a bevy of emails and phone calls to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi may generate some perverse level of satisfaction, but they will have no substantive effect. Communication with those who share our principles and our goals will inform them that we are here, we are engaged and we are watching. Efforts and watchfulness are best spent where they can be most effective and rewarding. In addition, it is much easier to move a pound than it is a ton, so it follows that it will be much easier to influence someone whose position begins close to ours than a politician whose stance is light-years removed.

The sum total of my rough treatment of Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, McConnell and their flock of GOP cohorts is that the statists are unsalvageable in my view, but the residing Republican members are either with us or may be convinced to join our movement. Unfortunately some RINO’s may be beyond recovery, but that’s what primaries are for. If too many of the GOP leadership and significant numbers of members resist the return to Constitutional government and principles, then a third-party alternative will become more likely. As a forty-two year member, activist and office-holder as a Republican, I made the third-party move to libertarianism to avoid the rush. Besides, the Arlen Specter’s, Lincoln Chaffee’s, Olympia Snow’s, John McCain’s, Lindsey’s Graham’s, and a collection of RINO’s, weasels and chickens convinced me that I no longer wished to be a part of such a compromising menagerie of weakness.

Comment:    cearlwriting@hotmail.com        or         www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Trump Suit

As one who has played hours of euchre in my wasted youth, I am quite familiar with the term “trump suit.” In fact, it’s legendary euchre mythology that the nine of trump is always worth a “trick.” Donald Trump’s recent actions and words have prompted me to liken him to a deck of cards. He has been “clubbing” President Obama over the birth certificate issue. He has attempted to use his “spades” to dig a deeper hole for the Obama presidency. His “heart” appears to be pointedly focused on himself, and the “diamonds” represent his constant bragging about his personal wealth and success.

Amateur magicians do card tricks, and, for me, it will take much more than verbal agility and sleight of hand to win my vote. So far The Donald has not won me over. His bombast efforts to capitalize on the “birther” issue have been quite entertaining, and at times Obama’s people appear to be squirming. What is alarming, however, is that so many citizens mistake Trump’s statements as proof of his courage and candor. Donald Trump is first and foremost a showman. He has rightly discerned that his attacks on the president’s lack of birth documents would be an issue that would result in TV and radio bookings and numerous queries from perplexed members of the Main Stream Media. For many in the nation the birth place question is an intriguing one. For Trump it is a gimmick. Pure and simple. He doesn’t really care about the circumstances surrounding the president’s origins. He merely seeks to “stir the pot.”

On policy issues Trump’s answers and responses are extremely shallow. Although he claims to appreciate and honor the Constitution, many of his solutions for vexing problems are clearly outside the parameters designed by the Founders. Herbert Hoover encouraged restrictive tariffs to create an economic fortress America in an effort to thwart the recession or depression that was on the immediate horizon. Trump’s proposed 25% tariff on the Chinese will wreak similar havoc in our present fragile economic condition. In addition it will radically tick off a major holder of our national debt at a time when we have yet to devise a solution for reducing our costly indebtedness. If Donald were a farm boy, he would know that it is unwise to poke the hornets’ nest with a stick…especially when the surly hornets have bad attitudes. Although he claims to support the Tea Party movement and to be a committed conservative, Trump’s mercurial and inconsistent history would suggest that he’s merely pandering to the most energized elements of the electorate. In other words like any other momentum-grabbing populist, he’s playing to the crowd.

If you are one of those voters who are enamored with Trump’s “tell it like it is” approach, please note that in 2009 and 2010 he contributed campaign funds to Anthony Weiner, Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel. Those may have been expedient and opportunistic moves for him and his business enterprises, but the underwriting of destructive lefties is not a principled stand. Certainly we want a president who can “get things done.” We should prefer someone who molds his policies and goals to fit within the Constitution, to protect and defend individual liberty, and to be anchored to enduring principles. I see no evidence of those positions in the Trump agenda…whatever it may be. Please recall that many people were won over by the Obama sizzle while many of us were warning that the underlying steak was rotten. We should not; we cannot afford to chase the sizzle again. Our situation is too fragile to allow our nation to gamble on a gambling kingpin.

Trump’s bravado and bombastic style have sucked some of the air out of Obama’s grand scheme for announcing that he’s seeking reelection. That is good. Trump’s incessant demands for a birth certificate have forced the media to acknowledge a very troubling issue. In March I addressed that issue with a column (Birth of a Nation-03-07-2011) so I believe that it’s a fruitless pursuit, but I’m pleased that someone is willing to chase his tail while the rabbit hops away. In showbiz parlance…Trump is an energetic and entertaining opening act. Now bring on the main event.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or    www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com