More Thoughts on Politics

Yesterday, I complained about how irritated I was with the general state of political discussion, how the insipid stupidity of the pundit commentary has soured the entire arena. After viewing the President's speech, however, I've begun to change my views somewhat both on the nature of political discourse, and what I feel the problem is with the general nature of rhetoric in this area.

It was refreshing to see that rhetoric has not devolved into a screaming match, that oration can still be considered alive in today's political arena. This, I feel, is a positive thing, because there's something enjoyable about well-woven rhetoric. Now, certainly one could argue that such is the point of an inspirational speech, which means that if you feel good or inspired after listening to it, then the speaker (the President, in this case) has "got you." Or something.

I would argue that there is a profound difference between this rhetoric and the raging exhibited by the common pundit. For one thing, I feel that the rhetoric, regardless of your political affiliation, can be appreciated by anyone who considers him or herself to be a student of language and communication, which, as English students, we all should be. You don't have to agree with the President to see the skill he puts into his oration, because there is skill, there, and whether or not you subscribe to an "us vs. them" mentality, it should be possible to admire the opponent on the opposite side. I have a little bit of experience in debate, and it was always a nice moment when you could say to an opponent, "you know, I disagree with you, but you conveyed your point well enough."

I think the reason that this higher level of discussion does not filter down to the masses is because ranting and raging have a much lower common denominator. Good rhetoric is difficult. It takes still to craft and it requires intelligence on behalf of the audience to really "get it." Compare that to screaming matches on any cable news show, or column, or blog, and tell me which rhetoric serves an actual purpose.

"You know what’s really frightening? You actually have an influence on this presidential election. That is scary, but it’s true. You’ve got stoned slackers watching your dopey show every night and they can vote."

Or:

"And this isn’t just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future."

There's nothing beneficial in the ranting. It's just verbal garbage, meant to whip its audience into a frenzy because that's what gets attention. Because it's passive to absorb; you read it, you agree with it, or you disagree with it, and either way, no critical thinking has gone into forming your opinion. Because such language does not require you to think for yourself, it only asks that you pay attention, because if you go that far, the speaker already has achieved the goal. It's parasitic.

Such things are an abuse of what it means to wield language; this is recklessness and idiocy on a scale so great that I consider it criminal. Language was an art, once. It still can be.