Obama’s poor oratory is bad for democracy

As parliament heads for its summer recess and political commentary enters its silly season, I thought I would cast my eye across the Atlantic (where I was living until this June) for some live political game. I wanted to avoid writing this particular post as I am aware it’ll be a great act of political heresy, but given the imminent arrival of the Democratic Candidate for President of the United States on these shores, I feel compelled. Compelled to break the last taboo in an age where there supposedly are none. So here goes: Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is an average speechmaker, and when it comes to debating or Q&A I’d reduce his grade to ‘poor’.

The second point is less contentious, Obama failed to outdebate the decidedly uncharismatic Hillary Clinton time after time. If you listen to him take questions from the press, as I did yesterday, the umming and ahhing is pronounced, Obama answers each question with a light sprinkling of words that don’t seem to lead anywhere before arriving (internally) on the point and then sharing it with the audience. Obama’s natural aura of cool distracts well from the lack of clarity in many of his answers. This compares unfavourably with, wait for it, George W. Bush. Before you close the blog in disgust, ask yourself this, have you seen Dubya at a press conference recently? Take the recent Bush-Brown conference at Downing Street; Bush gave a clear and thoughtful exposition of his views on international security threats without hesitation, repetition or deviation. At this point I’d like to make it clear I am discussing purely rhetoric and not substance.

Bush has had, of course, much more practice than his would be successor. He also benefits from what all politicians crave, low expectations. In his case they are so low it would be almost impossible for them not be exceeded.

“Fine”, I hear the more open minded of you saying, “but what about his speeches?” The much vaunted ‘soaring’ rhetoric? Well, maybe it’s just personal taste, but I am not a big fan. Let’s start from the 2004 Democratic Convention, ‘the speech’. I had heard so much about it I decided to sit through the whole thing on YouTube. It was OK, not brilliant, his improbable family history is certainly both interesting and one of those stories Americans like to believe ‘can only happen in America’ (Obama’s words). But he had nothing of Clinton’s instant empathy (Bill that is) or Blair’s ability to persuade; indeed his rapturous reception may have more to do with having a preening Edwards and zombified Kerry for comparison.

So why does he have such a fearsome reputation as an orator? Partly through a lack of competition, in a political class devoid of good characters, being able to convey a degree of personality on stage is a big plus. The ‘post racial’ appeal is also undeniable, “liberal” Americans (much as they would be loath to admit it) are a patronizingly pleased that there is an eloquent candidate who is black. Note he is not a ‘black’ candidate i.e. one who represent that community, but an American candidate with black skin. So when he says palpable falsehoods like “there is no black America or white America but the United States of America” the delirious crown reaction has little to do with the quality of the phrase (it goes from naff to grating when you hear him repeat it for the squilionth time) but because of who it is saying it. “I’m black and I’m not angry with you” is the rough translation.

Does it really matter? Well I would argue that his weakness in interactional situation and speeches both matter but for different reasons. The massive hyping of Obama’s speeches led to many more experienced candidates being denied any media publicity in the primary process and thus suffering slow political suffocation. This must be bad for democratic process, as the Democrats and Republicans have a virtual duopoly over the top job.

The stuttering performances in Q&A, however, may be more serious. His credentials indicate that Obama is on a far higher plane than Bush in terms of intellect. Indeed they say becoming President is the second hardest job to get in the US after editor of the Harvard Law Review (a position Obama has held), so the stuttering does not reflect a lack of horse power between the ears. What it may reflect however is a man who lacks a clear sense of what he believes and is desperate not to say the wrong thing and thus blow his chances of being elected.

The world has had a US president getting on the job training both in Policy and Politics for the last 8 years, and it hasn’t gone so well. The quiet assumption among Obamaphiles seems to be, while their man may be a bit green; he can make up for it with raw intellect. I’m not sure this is the case; Presidents simply don’t have the time to think through every problem from its roots. A well honed instinct is non-substitutable and can only come with experience. And the more lunatic McCain’s fiscal plans become, the more I wish the Democrats had seen this at the time.