Why Obama's rhetoric is Important

[barking_iguana]

Goergia10 at Daily Kos writes

In his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama not only smacked down the notion that Republican policies have been good for America, but he also lifted his voice in defining what Democrats stand for and what shapes their policies.

It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves, protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity, not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

It was refreshing to hear such a clear encapsulation of Democratic philosophy. While a large part of the convention was aimed at introducing Obama to America, I think the real accomplishment was to reintroduce liberalism to the American people. As Obama demonstrated, it's not about welfare moms or big government or communism wrapped in the American flag, as Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove and the rest of the right wing have been arguing for decades.

Liberalism is a worldview based upon fundamental notions of human decency and respect, of fairness and pragmatism. And in defining that, in swatting away the myths and lies that have cloaked our party, our people, and our brand for so long, Obama has taken the first step towards demonstrating that liberalism, and the Democratic Party, represent mainstream values, and that those values--and not Republican values-- should be used in governing our nation.

Reaganism has not been dominant because it's a conservative country, nor just because we have a conservative media, nor because people are stupid. It's been dominant because Reagan successfully sold a very specific kind of hokum. And ever since, Democrats have never addressed that hokum on its own terms and debunked it. So, since those are the terms that it's adherents have come to think in, Democrats, even the immensely talented Bill Clinton, have not gotten 50% of the popular vote.

Paul Wellstone (who was more liberal than Obama) and Howard Dean (who is probably closer ideologically to Obama) did make some attempt to do what Obama is doing. But Wellstone died and Dean wasn't sharp enough to sustain a workable public persona in front of constant media scrutiny. And though both had some impact by presenting what we actually believe, neither tailored their message to an environment in which the other sides' lies about us are better known than who we actually are.

Despite his acumen and talent, Obama may lose. Put simply, he might lose because he's Black. It will be a close thing. But win or lose, he's showing Democrats and liberals how to present what we're about.

Comments

[chemoelectric.livejournal.com]

Wellstone and Dean both had/have poor control of their flushing reflexes—a problem they share with Bill Clinton. Obama doesn’t have that problem. The main concern I have about Obama’s brain is nothing of that sort, but whether he can deal with nicotine addiction.

The speech was a good one. Might have been great had he used just the second half. :) It was far from being an E plabnista speech.

I suspect the E plabnista comes from his youthful speechwriting team and the mature speeches come from Obama’s own pen.

One of the things that made Obama’s acceptance speech especially good, I think, was the reference to MLK’s speech, for MLK’s rhetorical achievements were much greater than Barack Obama’s, and were achieved at a remarkably young age. There is really something important about noting those whose achievements are greater. About Keith Olbermann’s daily homage to Edward R. Murrow, for instance, the jealous and not very mature Randi Rhodes says it means Olbermann thinks he is a latter day Edward R. Murrow; but what it really means is that Olbermann each day is reminding us that he has Edward R. Murrow as role model, someone to strive towards resembling.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

> he might lose because he's Black

He isn't black. He's Irish. O'Bama.