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/