The President's worn method of argument and same old attitude of moral superiority is getting tired fast. And, yes, in making that remark I am purposefully highlighting the comment made by President Obama a few days at his "Hey, You're Gay, Hurray!" Day, when he stated—of those who stubbornly withhold their complete and unquestioning support of something called "LGBT Pride"—that they "still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes." More on that in a moment.
I watch hardly any news and I've watched little to none of candidate/President Obama's speeches over the past eighteen months or so. Instead, I read the transcripts of those speeches. I find it lends a bit more clarity of thought—not because I am mesmerized by his oratorical skills (overrated, I think, in many ways), but because the printed word is not so easily clouded and blurred by oratorical techniques and methods. In the end, it saves both time and energy.
What I have noticed is the President, when addressing certain controversial issues, often resorts to a simple but misleading method. It is not so much a form of argument as it is a way of largely avoiding argument while appearing to address the controversial subject at hand. This involves, first, speaking about the two opposing sides as if he is essentially objective about both and, in some way, is morally superior to both. Then he often renders an opinion that is actually in favor of one side of the debate, but makes it appear as though he has rendered an objective sort of opinion based on a morally (and intellectually) superior third way.
This has been especially evident, I think, with the issues of abortion and homosexuality; however, I'll begin with a speech that has nothing to do with those issues.
Example #1: In his July 24, 2008, speech in Germany, then-candidate Obama said:
In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe’s role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth – that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.
In this case, the apparent point being mad was that Obama, in a yet-to-be revealed way, would free both Europe and the U.S. from these false notions and dead-end positions. The conclusion was light on specifics, but heavy on typical feel-good rhetoric. The clear point was that Obama's position, however vague, would be superior than the failed positions of past leaders:
A similar approach to relations between nations/peoples can be found in Obama's June 4th speech at Cairo:
This rhetorical strategy, while garnering rave reviews in many corners, was criticized rather memorably (at least for me) by Charles Krauthammer, who said the President was "acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray." The key point—whatever your views on the Middle East—was that Obama dismissed, in rather condescending fashion, the specific positions of each side while speaking of "the truth"—that is, his position in favor of two states—as if it was somehow unique to him (it's not) and somehow obviously right (is it?).
The second example is more telling and more directly to my point, for it is about an issue that President Obama has clear and strong beliefs about: abortion. In his now famous (or infamous) speech at Notre Dame on May 17, 2009:
Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
The President spoke as though he had no stake or interest in the matter other than to be an impartial moral arbiter, toiling at the great virtue of modern liberalism—moral neutrality. But, of course, his actual position is neither moral or neutral; he is a consistent and confirmed supporter of abortion. And I doubt he is much concerned that the debate about abortion continues as long as the abortions are legal and accessible, just as the bully in the school yard isn't concerned that you are crying while giving him your lunch money, so long as you are handing over the lunch money.
The most egregious display of this sleight-of-mouth technique comes from the recent meeting between the President and several members of the Catholic media, as reported by Tim Drake of National Catholic Register:
In response to a question about statements made by those affiliated with the president’s administration, President Obama offered his position on homosexual rights with regard to the Church.
“For the gay and lesbian community in this country, I think it’s clear that they feel victimized in fairly powerful ways and they’re often hurt by not just certain teachings of the Catholic Church, but the Christian faith generally,” said the president. “And as a Christian, I’m constantly wrestling with my faith and my solicitude and regard and concern for gays and lesbians.”
“To the extent that I weighed into these debates, what I often discover is that there’s a lot of heat and sound and fury on both sides of these debates, even among people who I consider to be good people on either side,” he added.
He acknowledged that there have been times “where religion has been used in the service of not such good stuff” and said that “it’s incumbent upon us to — at least in my own view — to engage in some deep reflection and entertain a willingness to question whether we are acting in a way that’s consistent with not just church teachings, but also what Jesus Christ Our Lord called on us to do: Treat others as we would treat ourselves. Be our brother’s keepers.”
Here President Obama uses apparent detachment ("they feel"), claims to deep moral pondering ("I"m constantly wrestling..."), and implied objectivity ("...on both sides of these debates..."), while driving a wedge between "church teachings" and "what Jesus Christ Our Lord called on us to do." In doing so, he strongly insinuates that opposition to "homosexual rights" is somehow contrary to the teachings of Jesus and, therefore, to the Church. As usual, he doesn't provide any substantive argument or support for his position. He decries the "heat and sound and fury", but offers nothing of substance himself (it appears that those "in the gay and lesbian community" can be forgiven their strong emotions since they "feel victimized"). Apparently, the fact that he says it calmly and with measured assurance should be enough to convince and persuade. Some might wonder if this is a matter of "style over substance," but I think it's more accurate to say this approach is better described as "the style is the substance," something implicitly admitted by some of his Catholic admirers.
• On a closely related note, see "Welcome, Obama. The Vatican Plays Him a Fanfare", by Sandro Magister (Chiesa, July 7, 2009)
Good work isolating this rhetorical formula!
Posted by: David Charkowsky | Monday, July 06, 2009 at 02:35 PM
Very interesting. Good analysis of our president's rhetorical methods. But our president is not the biggest problem we have. We Catholics made him our president!
Posted by: Dan Deeny | Tuesday, July 07, 2009 at 07:03 AM
This is the problem with democracy. The people get the president they want. Modern western society does not want rigorous moral reasoning. They want sentamentalism. That is what Obama gives them. He is capable of better. But why should he attempt it? The public loves the idea of wrestling with moral issues and then simply following the latest poll.
Posted by: Randy | Tuesday, July 07, 2009 at 01:13 PM
His technique is quite tiring and formulaic. "There are those who say X (X being some caricature of what his opponents really are arguing), but we say Y (the enlightened middle ground). I think it's his sad way of trying to ape JFK who used the "those who" construction frequently but in a much more compelling way.
Posted by: Jack | Tuesday, July 07, 2009 at 03:22 PM
Very good analysis of his speaking style. The implication that he stands above the fray and looks on all with cool objectivity is probably one of the attractions for the unwary.
Posted by: Subvet | Tuesday, July 07, 2009 at 07:10 PM
I always feel agitated when I hear Obama speak, knowing it is all claptrap. You pinned down the specifics.
Posted by: Kmbold | Thursday, July 09, 2009 at 08:28 AM
We Catholics can't say now as JFK did at America University, "The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war." In fact, some Catholics ignored our popes and were as gung ho (and unapologetic) as any of the Bible-thumping Evangelicals to support W. Bush's war. We Catholics should be parsing and applauding -not speeches - but concrete actions of President Obama (like JFK) who in Moscow has taken the first, if modest step, to ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons. We should raise our voices in support of peace as he stands up to the Nuclear Posture Review of Pentagon generals and the American nuclear weapons establishment who want to build a new generation of warheads. In Sept. 1963, JFK reiterated key themes of "diversity" and "human rights" at the Mormon Tabernacle in SLC. Again, some Catholics can't rise to JFK's (albeit weak) level of "tolerance," but have joined the (self-styled Religious) Right in bashing gays, pushing the hate button at every opportunity - not the kind of "solidarity" with "lost sheep" we hear of in "Charity In Truth." And as abhorrent as abortion is, President Obama is not a Catholic. We can work with him to actually reduce abortions - as he is on record to do - or we can line up at the entrance to Notre Dame with bloody dolls and shout loudly for Fox News. I deplore the loss of sacramentality by professional Catholic yakkers who abuse their faith and reason to politicize the Truth. And yes, I do see Barack Obama as someone who has the intelligence and humility to listen to our Holy Father, learn from him, and actually do something to reduce structural, institutional sin in our world. Eliminate original sin from our nature? Of course not. But if we are to have dia-logos in our time, and initiate the cultural and systemic changes our world needs, I support a communio-organizer like Barack Obama, the closest, in spirit, to Robert Kennedy in forty years.
Posted by: Steven Harper | Thursday, July 09, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Steven, one quick comment. Obama is NOT on record as saying he wants to reduce the number of abortions. He parsed his words very carefully; he said, rather, that he wants to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. The reason is obvious, he doesn't want to fall into the trap of admitting that abortion is wrong. Once you do that, you lose your footing in the argument very quickly, i.e., why is it wrong? Because it's the killing of an innocent human being? Oh, we have laws prohibiting that...
Posted by: Jack | Thursday, July 09, 2009 at 08:39 PM
Your "quick comment" is very telling, Jack. I gave you plenty to respond to, but like many one-note Catholics, you go straight to the abortion button. I don't know if you're one of those who call themselves "pro-life," but are actually only "anti-abortion." However, my newspaper reports that Rev. Federico Lombardi said that Pope Benedict told him that Obama pledged to seek to reduce abortions. That's what I heard at Notre Dame in May, too. There are other non-Catholics in our pluralistic society (especially people of color) that are opposed to abortion because they are part of a larger non-violence discourse (opposed to war, favor abolition of the death penalty, favor economic immigration, work to change a legal system that disproportionately punishes the poor, etc., the whole litany of authentically pro-life issues - most of which President Obama supports. In fact, he supports more of these authentically pro-life issues than any recent president or presidential candidate. Quite frankly, parsing rhetorical styles or losing one's footing in an argument doesn't matter to me. I was only on the Ignatius Press website to order my copy of Caritas In Veritate, my road map to peace. There's too much real work to be done alongside our catholic, non-Catholic president.
Posted by: Steven Harper | Saturday, July 11, 2009 at 04:15 PM
Mr Obama is a Saul Alinsky styled Marxist whose mentors, Frank Davis and Bill Ayers fall into the Maoist camp. And Mr Harper is correct in assessing Mr Obama's philosophical kinship to RFK. Both are political opportunists. Keeping abortions 'safe & legal', redistributing wealth in order to 'help those less fortunate' are great sound bites but they are, in the end, rhetoric to foster Marxism's ultimate goal: to destroy family and faith and to make the populace dependent on the state for salvation, bypassing any need for God. Look closely at Marx' planks: abolition of private property, the definition of which is broadened to include the family because family = patriarchy which is merely a man owning his wife and children. Abortion furthers this destruction of "property" by telling men that women may have recreational sex with whomever they choose, and should she become pregnant, either abort the byproduct or know that the state will raise it as its own. Mr Obama will 'pledge to reduce abortions' with birth control provisions and 'safe sex' programs, which will further cement the idea that sex is merely a recreational activity, not a life giving act to be saved for the marriage vows.
As for non-violent issues, I don't know too many anti-abortion advocates who would not seriously consider trading the death penalty for abortion bans, but that's a straw man argument anyway. The death penalty involves specific crimes with specific conditions and usually involve automatic appeals with lengthy legal procedures. An aborted child is merely a 'non-person' with no rights; an inconvenience to be tossed. There are no automatic appeals for the baby and Mr Obama favors letting it die should it survive a 'botched abortion'.
Any political agenda that champions the destruction of the family and sets the state up as savior is neither pro-life nor non-violent. Mr Harper, you need to read beyond the left's talking points and stop drinking their kool-aid.
I've been a public high school teacher for 25 years and I've seen first hand what the last 40 years of liberal posturing has done. I was an activist for Eugene McCarthy and got caught up in the Kennedy 'charm' in 1968. Gratefully, it didn't take me 40 years to figure out that the Kennedy family is about as morally bankrupt as they come.
Posted by: A Mauldin | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 10:13 AM