Posted by
Daniel Webb on Monday, June 30, 2008 4:03:43 PM
What is one of the things that people have used to attack George Walker Bush? It is that he is not a good public speaker and cannot seem to get through an entire speech without multiple mistakes. What is something everyone uses to praise Barack Hussein Obama? It is that he is an excellent public speaker who is very charismatic and inspiring.
Now I believe that the man holding the highest office in our nation should be a good communicator with a strong ability to speak and in this George Walker Bush has done well enough. His mistakes simply show him to be human. However, the ability to speak well in public and inspire people is not an issue to which I give much credibility.
Is the ability to inspire people more important than the issues being advocated? What is it about public speeches that people are so fascinated with? Why do people want to follow Obama and despise Bush over this issue?
I believe it is because people do not want to think for themselves. It is far easier to feel than to think. If a leader has the ability to motivate people to follow him by appealing to their feelings, than he has won…no matter what issues are being advocated.
Barack Hussein Obama is great at this. I have never supported Obama but even I felt a tingle in my spine one time when I listened to one of his speeches, even though I disagreed with most of what he said. Look at what others are saying about him. "He's very charismatic. It was a 'you-had-to-be-there' kind of experience.” “I was undecided in the beginning but after hearing a few speeches I gradually moved toward him." “Every time I hear him speak I become more hopeful and more sure that he would be the best president we could have." (
All these quotes came from http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/for-obama-public-speaking-skills-make.html). People love hearing Barack Hussein Obama speak.
What about George Walker Bush? I voted for Bush twice and have supported most of what he has done (with several exceptions). Overall, I believe he has been a good president and I believe history will treat him better than the current media. However, I have never really been inspired by any of his speeches. He is dry, boring, and not especially enthusiastic. He speaks his mind and what he intends to do and people are left to think for themselves whether he is right or wrong. They are free of the emotion of the moment and are simply holding the facts of what he said. They are forced to look at these facts for themselves and decide whether they will follow this man.
That is the scary difference between Bush and Obama. Obama mesmerizes people with his speeches. By the power of his speeches he influences them to think through their emotions, which is far easier, and he is worshiped for it…and I do mean worshiped. Look at this comment about one of Obamas typical rallies. “You can see it in their flushed-face smiles and hear it in their screams. They say the phenomenon is difficult to describe, but once they experience it they tell their friends, sisters, mothers and daughters, and they come back for more if they can” (same source as above). Obama is loved for his charisma and power of persuasion.
Bush mesmerizes few. He has little charisma. He denies people of emotion by simply giving his plans and information and they are left to think through things for themselves. They are denied sensations of passion on which they can act and are forced instead to act based on cold, unfeeling reason. I believe it is for this that Bush is despised above all else.
Conclusion: This article is not about the individual issues at hand of which there is, indeed, much debate. This article is not about whether it is Bush or Obama who speaks rightly. It is simply what I have noticed about how people react to speeches by men. Regardless of the issues, people do not truly want to think for themselves. That is why speakers like Obama, who lead by manipulating emotion, will win the crowds and speakers like Bush, who force us to think for ourselves, will be despised. History is full of people who used the power of their speeches to rally the crowds to themselves. Crowds are easily manipulated and a good, emotional speech, which preaches a damaging message, will rally more people than a clear, honest speech which is full of sound principles. The whole point of this is that being a great public speaker means nothing in the end. The important thing is the message being preached. However, it takes a thinking mind and a little bit of time spent in the self-discipline of thought to sort through what was said. It is this that the masses cannot and will probably never do. I will end with a quote from G.K. Chesterton.
If there is one fact we can really prove, from the history that we really do know, it is that despotism can be a development, often a late development and very often indeed the end of societies that have been highly democratic. A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy. As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the price of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep (emphasis added).
Are we a “tired democracy” that will not keep “that eternal vigilance” and prefer instead to forfeit our thinking and fall asleep?