Bill,
    Nicely said. I'd just like to add, to bring us back to Gregg's point,
that part of what we are assessing is how well a candidate can LISTEN,
how well he/she can look past entrenched positions that have proven
polarizing in the past and offer alternatives that break those
deadlocks.
   It would be interesting to apply that to the issue of public grammar,
which is deeply polarized, in deep need of new paradigms.

Craig


I'm going to attempt to focus on general rhetoric rather than any
> specific candidate, past or present, if only because the thread is one
> with a strong potential for wandering off into non-list-relevant
> territory. We're partly involved in trying to decide whether someone's
> ability to speak articulately and (for want of a better term) cleverly
> is an automatic plus - whether it implies a heightened ability to govern
> well. As English-teachers, we're not disinterested parties; it's hard to
> feel convincing when you're explaining to students how important it is
> to craft language articulately and carefully and at the same time you
> (and they) know that someone who hasn't been doing either is president.
> We all like to think our field is the most important thing ever, and
> enforced humility is never fun. However, I think most of us would agree
> with the answers I've dubbed in for the following two questions:
>
>
>
> (1) Is it possible for a brilliant speaker to be lousy at governing?
> Yes.
>
> (2) Is it possible for a bad speaker to be good at governing? Yes.
>
>
>
> And now we get to the "However" part. When dealing with candidates (for
> any office, or any job), we're guessing what they might do; the truth of
> the matter is only assessable after that person's term. So, the issue is
> one of evidence. If someone writes a speech that uses language
> articulately and insightfully (and I think it's very important to
> distinguish this from giving that speech; I don't want to find out I
> voted for someone's ghostwriter), I can gather that the candidate is
> capable of being articulate, and of thinking carefully. I don't know
> whether or not the candidate will continue to exercise those abilities;
> I just know that s/he can do so. I also don't know whether the candidate
> can make good decisions - but being able to think carefully and
> communicate well is one of the requirements of high office. A candidate
> who gives an inarticulate and platitude-ridden speech, conversely, has
> not demonstrated that s/he is incapable of articulate language use and
> careful thought - instead, we're left with a simple absence of data
> (unless it's a very important speech, in which case one has to question
> the candidate's judgment if not his/her locution).
>
>
>
> Thus, I can view "articulateness" as a plus for a candidate - but I have
> to regard arguments such as, "X's position on Y must be wrong because
> s/he can't make a simple sentence work" as being an ad hominem attack.
> All things being equal, though (as if they ever are), given a choice
> between a candidate whose articulateness has demonstrated at least one
> or two positive qualities, and a candidate whose inarticulateness has
> not given me such evidence, I think it's rational to vote for the
> former. Unfortunately, that logic assumes that part of the
> otherwise-equal status of the candidates is their positions on
> substantive issues.
>
>
>
> Bill Spruiell
>
> Dept. of English
> Central Michigan University
>
>
>
> [opinions expressed herein are not to be taken as indicative of the
> policy of my institution or department]
>
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:36 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Grammar defines the candidates.
>
>
>
> This seems to be a "rhetoric versus reality" problem. Obama does seem to
> be a clear, articulate, hopeful, inclusive, forward oriented person and
> candidate.  He does seem to want to be perceived as the kind of person
> who includes everyone in the discussion, the process of crafting policy.
> Yet his history as a legislator and his pronouncement about specific
> policy choices alienate him from many voters.  It is unclear to me why
> the grammar of hope with its infinite possibilities, which he seems to
> do well, is preferable to the grammar of fear with its much more
> restricted set of possibilities.  It may be that our grammar ought to
> match our reality, and it may be that our possibilities are not
> infinite, that our choices do have consequences over which we have no
> control, and that we do have much to fear in this world from those who
> have bad ideas, even if their motives are good.
>
>
>
> I do not see how a person such as Obama, whose policy positions are
> opposed by so many, can possibly unite the country.  I do not even know
> what it means to unite the country or if that is possible or even
> desirable.  There are deep divisions in philosophy and policy in our
> nation, and these will not go away.  Being invited to the table, being
> consulted, being asked, while certainly desirable, are not substitutes
> for having one's ideas put into effect.  Personally, I vote for
> political leaders with whom I agree on the key issues that matter the
> most to me.  Historically, presidential candidates who look to the
> future are more successful than those who look to the past--Obama has
> learned this lesson--but it seems at best counterintuitive to vote for a
> candidate with whom one disagrees violently on nearly every issue in the
> hope that somehow having a place at the table will make up for not
> having the kinds of policies one desires.
>
>
>
> Scott Woods
>
>
>
> Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 	Dear Assembly Members,
>
> 	I have sent the following letter in response to an L.A. TIMES
> editorial.  If language shapes our thinking, grammar shapes the
> framework in which our thinking takes place.  We are at a crossroads
> where narrative meets process, where past, present, and future meet the
> eternal present, surrounded by infinite possibilities.  I send this to
> you in hopes that it resonates with your thinking.
>
> 	I look forward to reading your responses.
>
> 	Sincerely,
>
> 	Gregg Heacock
>
>
>
> 	Dear Editor,
>
> 	      Jonah Goldberg in "Obama's rhetoric, American realities"
> is right to raise the issue of whether a diverse community with a
> history of individual grievances could come to the same table to plan
> together for their common future.  Quoting Robert Putnam, author of
> "Bowling Alone," he says, "In the presence of diversity, we hunker
> down," and he interprets this lack of "social trust" as possibly being a
> form of "realism."  As a teacher of English, I respect our realistic
> inclination to challenge other people's thinking by saying, "Yes, but .
> . . ," "So what!," and "Oh, yeah?  What makes you think so?  How do you
> know?"  These challenges, based on logical conditions of sufficient
> grounds, relevance, and acceptability, are filters that protect us from
> intellectual pollution.  The question is whether our filtration system
> gets so clogged with lack of basic trust that it never lets any new
> information get through.  Do our histories and personal grievances get
> in the way of being realistic?  What makes Obama such an agent of change
> is that he has found a way to move us beyond ourselves.
>
> 	      Grammar provides us with two frames through which we view
> our lives.  Scientific, or process, paragraphs are written in the
> eternal present:  We do this, then do that to bring about a desired
> result.  Historic, or narrative, paragraphs are written in the past
> tense, exploring how the past affects the present and could repeat
> itself in the future.  Most of us a pleased to imagine ourselves in the
> eternal present for we are never lost in the here and now and the
> possibilities before us are infinite.  Our decisions, therefore, are
> guided by hope.  When we think of the harm we have suffered in the past
> and contemplate how we might continue to be harmed in the future, our
> decisions in the present are guided by fear.
>
> 	      Because Obama is a pluralist, honoring all groups and all
> proposals and setting criteria for discerning which ideas are presently
> acceptable, he is about process, not about grievance.  People who come
> to the table may carry resentments, but, relevant though they may be to
> evaluating the worth of a plan, they are subsumed by the criteria agreed
> upon by all.  Obama has already shown us how this process works.  In the
> pre-Nevada caucus debate, John Edwards challenged him on his willingness
> to include the nuclear power industry in negotiating our energy policy.
> He said the history of the nuclear industry showed it could not be
> trusted. Obama countered by saying that one of the conditions for any
> energy plan is that it must be safe.  So far, the nuclear industry has
> not shown itself to be able to dispose nuclear waste safely.  Edwards
> agreed, then, that their positions were essentially the same.  Excluding
> the nuclear power industry from the table would not be fair.  Telling
> the nuclear industry that it must meet certain safety criteria is
> straight-forward and honest.
>
> 	      Politics of the past has been based on excluding people
> and proposals from the table.  Obama's way of thinking is new on the
> American and international scene.  Its newness makes it hard for us to
> understand.  But, it is inherent in the very language we use that shapes
> our thinking.  It is what makes Obama a uniter, not a divider.  That's
> why we trust him to serve as our agent of change.
>
>
>
> 	              Respectfully,
>
>
>
> 	              Gregg Heacock To join or leave this LISTSERV list,
> please visit the list's web interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave
> the list"
>
> 	Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
> it now.
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http:/mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62
> sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ%20>  To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please
> visit the list's web interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave
> the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/