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 provenpolarizing in the past and offer alternatives that break thosedeadlocks.It would be interesting to apply that to the issue of public grammar,which is deeply polarized, in deep need of new paradigms.CraigI'm going to attempt to focus on general rhetoric rather than anyspecific candidate, past or present, if only because the thread is onewith a strong potential for wandering off into non-list-relevantterritory. We're partly involved in trying to decide whether someone'sability to speak articulately and (for want of a better term) cleverlyis an automatic plus - whether it implies a heightened ability to governwell. As English-teachers, we're not disinterested parties; it's hard tofeel convincing when you're explaining to students how important it isto 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, andenforced humility is never fun. However, I think most of us would agreewith 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 (forany office, or any job), we're guessing what they might do; the truth ofthe matter is only assessable after that person's term. So, the issue isone of evidence. If someone writes a speech that uses languagearticulately and insightfully (and I think it's very important todistinguish this from giving that speech; I don't want to find out Ivoted for someone's ghostwriter), I can gather that the candidate iscapable of being articulate, and of thinking carefully. I don't knowwhether 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 candidatecan make good decisions - but being able to think carefully andcommunicate well is one of the requirements of high office. A candidatewho gives an inarticulate and platitude-ridden speech, conversely, hasnot demonstrated that s/he is incapable of articulate language use andcareful thought - instead, we're left with a simple absence of data(unless it's a very important speech, in which case one has to questionthe candidate's judgment if not his/her locution).Thus, I can view "articulateness" as a plus for a candidate - but I haveto regard arguments such as, "X's position on Y must be wrong becauses/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 choicebetween a candidate whose articulateness has demonstrated at least oneor two positive qualities, and a candidate whose inarticulateness hasnot given me such evidence, I think it's rational to vote for theformer. Unfortunately, that logic assumes that part of theotherwise-equal status of the candidates is their positions onsubstantive issues.Bill SpruiellDept. of EnglishCentral Michigan University[opinions expressed herein are not to be taken as indicative of thepolicy of my institution or department]From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott WoodsSent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:36 AMSubject: Re: Grammar defines the candidates.This seems to be a "rhetoric versus reality" problem. Obama does seem tobe a clear, articulate, hopeful, inclusive, forward oriented person andcandidate. He does seem to want to be perceived as the kind of personwho includes everyone in the discussion, the process of crafting policy.Yet his history as a legislator and his pronouncement about specificpolicy choices alienate him from many voters. It is unclear to me whythe grammar of hope with its infinite possibilities, which he seems todo well, is preferable to the grammar of fear with its much morerestricted set of possibilities. It may be that our grammar ought tomatch our reality, and it may be that our possibilities are notinfinite, that our choices do have consequences over which we have nocontrol, and that we do have much to fear in this world from those whohave bad ideas, even if their motives are good.I do not see how a person such as Obama, whose policy positions areopposed by so many, can possibly unite the country. I do not even knowwhat it means to unite the country or if that is possible or evendesirable. There are deep divisions in philosophy and policy in ournation, and these will not go away. Being invited to the table, beingconsulted, being asked, while certainly desirable, are not substitutesfor having one's ideas put into effect. Personally, I vote forpolitical leaders with whom I agree on the key issues that matter themost to me. Historically, presidential candidates who look to thefuture are more successful than those who look to the past--Obama haslearned this lesson--but it seems at best counterintuitive to vote for acandidate with whom one disagrees violently on nearly every issue in thehope that somehow having a place at the table will make up for nothaving the kinds of policies one desires.Scott WoodsGregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Dear Assembly Members,I have sent the following letter in response to an L.A. TIMESeditorial. If language shapes our thinking, grammar shapes theframework in which our thinking takes place. We are at a crossroadswhere narrative meets process, where past, present, and future meet theeternal present, surrounded by infinite possibilities. I send this toyou in hopes that it resonates with your thinking.I look forward to reading your responses.Sincerely,Gregg HeacockDear Editor,Jonah Goldberg in "Obama's rhetoric, American realities"is right to raise the issue of whether a diverse community with ahistory of individual grievances could come to the same table to plantogether for their common future. Quoting Robert Putnam, author of"Bowling Alone," he says, "In the presence of diversity, we hunkerdown," and he interprets this lack of "social trust" as possibly being aform of "realism." As a teacher of English, I respect our realisticinclination to challenge other people's thinking by saying, "Yes, but .. . ," "So what!," and "Oh, yeah? What makes you think so? How do youknow?" These challenges, based on logical conditions of sufficientgrounds, relevance, and acceptability, are filters that protect us fromintellectual pollution. The question is whether our filtration systemgets so clogged with lack of basic trust that it never lets any newinformation get through. Do our histories and personal grievances getin the way of being realistic? What makes Obama such an agent of changeis that he has found a way to move us beyond ourselves.Grammar provides us with two frames through which we viewour lives. Scientific, or process, paragraphs are written in theeternal present: We do this, then do that to bring about a desiredresult. Historic, or narrative, paragraphs are written in the pasttense, exploring how the past affects the present and could repeatitself in the future. Most of us a pleased to imagine ourselves in theeternal present for we are never lost in the here and now and thepossibilities before us are infinite. Our decisions, therefore, areguided by hope. When we think of the harm we have suffered in the pastand contemplate how we might continue to be harmed in the future, ourdecisions in the present are guided by fear.Because Obama is a pluralist, honoring all groups and allproposals and setting criteria for discerning which ideas are presentlyacceptable, he is about process, not about grievance. People who cometo the table may carry resentments, but, relevant though they may be toevaluating the worth of a plan, they are subsumed by the criteria agreedupon by all. Obama has already shown us how this process works. In thepre-Nevada caucus debate, John Edwards challenged him on his willingnessto include the nuclear power industry in negotiating our energy policy.He said the history of the nuclear industry showed it could not betrusted. Obama countered by saying that one of the conditions for anyenergy plan is that it must be safe. So far, the nuclear industry hasnot shown itself to be able to dispose nuclear waste safely. Edwardsagreed, then, that their positions were essentially the same. Excludingthe nuclear power industry from the table would not be fair. Tellingthe nuclear industry that it must meet certain safety criteria isstraight-forward and honest.Politics of the past has been based on excluding peopleand proposals from the table. Obama's way of thinking is new on theAmerican and international scene. Its newness makes it hard for us tounderstand. But, it is inherent in the very language we use that shapesour thinking. It is what makes Obama a uniter, not a divider. That'swhy 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 leavethe list"Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/________________________________Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Tryit now.sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ%20> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, pleasevisit the list's web interface at:http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leavethe list"Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interfaceat: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:and select "Join or leave the list"Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/