| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| "Nucular" -vs- "Nuance." Who wins? |
| 2004-09-24 |
| Hard to believe, but this is from Stanley Fish, an old hard-left deconstructionist lit prof at the U. of Chicago. Harder to believe, it's on today's op/ed page in the NY Times. In an unofficial but very formal poll taken in my freshman writing class the other day, George Bush beat John Kerry by a vote of 13 to 2 (14 to 2, if you count me). My students were not voting on the candidates' ideas. They were voting on the skill (or lack of skill) displayed in the presentation of those ideas. The basis for their judgments was a side-by-side display in this newspaper on Sept. 8 of excerpts from speeches each man gave the previous day. Put aside whatever preferences you might have for either candidate's positions, I instructed; just tell me who does a better job of articulating his positions, and why. The analysis was devastating. [...] Now of course it could be the case that every student who voted against Mr. Kerry's speech in my little poll will vote for him in the general election. After all, what we're talking about here is merely a matter of style, not substance, right? And - this is a common refrain among Kerry supporters - doesn't Mr. Bush's directness and simplicity of presentation reflect a simplicity of mind and an incapacity for nuance, while Mr. Kerry's ideas are just too complicated for the rhythms of publicly accessible prose? Sorry, but that's dead wrong. If you can't explain an idea or a policy plainly in one or two sentences, it's not yours; and if it's not yours, no one you speak to will be persuaded of it, or even know what it is, or (and this is the real point) know what you are. Words are not just the cosmetic clothing of some underlying integrity; they are the operational vehicles of that integrity, the visible manifestation of the character to which others respond. And if the words you use fall apart, ring hollow, trail off and sound as if they came from nowhere or anywhere (these are the same thing), the suspicion will grow that what they lack is what you lack, and no one will follow you.. Nervous Democrats who see their candidate slipping in the polls console themselves by saying, "Just wait, the debates are coming.'' As someone who will vote for John Kerry even though I voted against him in my class, that's just what I'm worried about. Go read the whole thing for a bit deeper of an analysis. And keep in mind that when a guy like this writes a piece like this and the Times runs it, the Dems have big problems on their hands, and a losing campaign. |
| Posted by:growler |
| #5 pshwaw! This old coot is in as much denial as Dan Rather if he thinks this "substance over style" bullshit will adequately justify voting for Kerry. It's barely different than Dan Rathers, "accurate if not authentic" meme. His problem is that he's got all these young, bright kids in his class and in the past they've always looked up to him as a hip, cool, knowing teacher. Now, if he shills for Kerry, they just seem him as another daffy 60's guy - stuck in the summer of love and unable to bring himself into the realities of the 21st century with it's Islamist threats. It makes him feel old and foolish, so he's found a way to straddle both sides of the divide. Thumbs up to him for at least attempting to find a loop-hole to connect with these kids. To bad, like Dan Rather, he doesn't have the guts to admit that the "enlightened" 60's with it's Clintons and Kerrys were a fraud. Go Bush. |
| Posted by: 2B 2004-09-24 4:46:26 PM |
| #4 Words are not just the cosmetic clothing of some underlying integrity; they are the operational vehicles of that integrity, the visible manifestation of the character to which others respond. Well, there goes forty years of doctoral theses. |
| Posted by: BH 2004-09-24 1:44:41 PM |
| #3 Devastating. When an old deconstructionist starts to speak some common sense, there's hope after all that literary studies are becoming less of a joke. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-24 1:34:58 PM |
| #2 Or in the immortal words of the Bard: Et tu, Brute?, then die Caeser... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-09-24 1:16:17 PM |
#1 As someone who will vote for John Kerry even though I voted against him in my classUh, Stanley, what happened to "if the words you use fall apart, ring hollow, trail off and sound as if they came from nowhere or anywhere..., the suspicion will grow that what they lack is what you lack, and no one will follow you"? What does it say about you that you conclude this, and write this, but are still going to vote for Kerry? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-09-24 1:11:58 PM |