[lit-ideas] Re: Bush's press conference
- From: Scribe1865@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:31:31 EDT
Not considering the intended and implied meaning of words, Bush's press
conference hit new lows in solecisms and painful bloopers. Did anyone catch
that at
some point he spoke of
"comforting loved ones who have lost their lives."
It made me wonder about the efficacy of choosing leaders based on how they
employ their native language. Most of us semi-educated types tend to favor
well-spoken politicians, and it seems to make sense.
We assume that if politicians can speak well, then they probably can think
clearly. If they talk like a nervous Lou Costello, then they probably shouldn't
have the nuclear trigger anywhere nearby. On the other hand, well-spoken
people may only use their cleverness to advance selfish agendas, and
intelligence
hardly guarantees anything beyond itself.
Advancing into an even more meaningless paragraph, where we equate moral
goodness with a populist agenda, one can sum up leaders as (1) Poor speakers
who
are morally good (Jimmy Carter), (2) Poor speakers who are evil (Hitler
post-1944, Stalin) , (3) Good speakers who are morally good (Lincoln, Martin
Luther
King), and (4) Good speakers who are morally evil (pre-1944 Hitler).
However if we equate leadership in general with eloquence, mere leadership,
amoral and powerful leadership, the ability to mobilize people stripped of our
judgment of leadership's ends -- isn't there a correlation between eloquence
and leadership?
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
