Obama surely ranks as one of the more intelligent presidents. Reading his books though it becomes clear that his intelligence is more that of a poet than an intellectual. He recoils from the rigors of logical reasoning. Rather than choose between alternatives, he invents beautiful verbal formulas to obviate the need for choice. And while he always respectfully engage his opponents as human beings, he resents having to engage their arguments. Here’s a fine example of this tendency embedded in the middle of his speech:
“Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions – who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them – that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works ….”
Those of us who question Obama’s long-term spending plans are not cynics and we do not object to big ideas. What we object to are irrational ideas, like investing in windpower when nuclear costs so much less.
Obama does not attempt to refute us. He argues by authority: Cost-benefit analysis, he says, no longer applies. And then, uh oh, he invokes the mystic judgments of history. “The ground has shifted.” Really? Prove it. “History” didn’t deliver for Hegel, Marx, or Toynbee, Mr. President – why are you so sure it will deliver for you?
8 responses so far
1 thaa // Jan 21, 2009 at 9:28 am
In fact, poets are likely to be far more intellectually rigorous than intellectuals–that’s why we continue to read them. And that’s why most “intellectuals” (common as houseflies since the Enlightenment released them from the clergy) fade with the passage of their generations and their various ideological battles.
Although poets do not “argue,” no reading of Herbert, Wordsworth, Donne, Milton, Dickinson, Stevens, Bishop, Eliot, et al., could suggest they “recoil” from intellectual rigor. Indeed, “verbal formulas” are alien to poetry, although quite common among intellectuals, whether those formulas be “beautiful” or not.
Obama’s speeches tend, therefore, not to be “poetic” but merely imprecise. This is why–once a few days have passed and the memory of Obama’s delivery has faded–so many people (in my experience) are unable to remember his actual language (except for the infamous Grandma passage). Beware, then, taking the absence of explanationitis (a modern mental disease, primarily of the Left) from those speeches as evidence of (uplifting) “poetry.” And beware, then, taking the presence of explanationitis (in some policy paper, say) as evidence of intellectual rigor.
2 JJWFromME // Jan 21, 2009 at 9:55 am
Thaa said, “Beware, then, taking the absence of explanationitis (a modern mental disease, primarily of the Left)…” I suppose someone might think that if they’d been living in a cave for the past 8 years. (But I agree–Milton, Coleridge, If they’re not intellectuals, I don’t know what one is.)
3 Clarence Darrow // Jan 21, 2009 at 12:09 pm
David – thoughtful commentary. The ability to speak and gain support without taking postitions that alienate folks is a big part of being politically successful. Obama is one of the most politically gifted men I have ever seen.
If he can turn practical coalition building into tangible results and actually manage a diverse coalition of advisors and build a consensu he will be successful. If not it will be Jimmy Carter all over again.
Love the Nucelar power arguement, I would love to see us as a country actualy invest in the plants instead of exporting our vast Uranium reserves which is not a renewable resource.
WE import hundreds of billions in foreign oil and export Uranium as a country . We need a leader to take a stand on things like this.
4 OregonPerspective // Jan 21, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Perhaps there’s rigorous thought behind the poetry of Obama’s speech. That will become apparent in the supporting arguments for for the policy proposals which are sure to follow in the coming weeks.
When Obama’s says, “The question we ask today is … whether it works,” it suggests to me that his administration will welcome arguments over policy, but only if accompanied by evidence.
Is it irrational to give priority to investment in wind power, which can be put online in 2 years with little risk and help end a recession, when nuclear power would require 10 years involve still unresolved risks?
That’s a debate worth having. With rigorous, cost-benefit analysis.
5 fact based // Jan 21, 2009 at 1:03 pm
“Cost-benefit analysis, he says, no longer applies”
really ? could you provide the full citation ?
When Obama makes specific proposals please show us specific cost benefit analyses that were ignored.
6 debs // Jan 21, 2009 at 3:15 pm
1. If Obama had only a poetic intelligence, I doubt he would have been such a distinguished graduate of HLS–one whom Larry Tribe called, as I’ve noted to you before, one of his two or three best students ever. I don’t think you can be a legal star–including another 12 years teaching at the U. of Chicago–and not have a powerful analytical and argumentative mind, too. I think we have to concede the point that Obama is both poetically and analytically gifted–there are such people.
2. You wrote elsewhere that his remarks about terrorism were “weak.” Peggy Noonan disagrees and so do I. It’s not clear to me how much more forceful he could have been without sounding hysterical and demagogic. In a democratic society, his remarks were sober, strong, measured, and appropriate. Republicans and conservatives, in particular, as I’ve remarked to you several years ago, seem obsessed with affect–the rhetorical expression of anger and militarist militancy in particular. Meaning, it’s often seems more important how riled up the speaker or writer is than how intelligent and effective the policies are which he is articulating. This seems entirely wrong–the Mussolinis, Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos are the creators of mass discipline thru coercive, badgering rhetoric. We can firmly express our views–even against the dispicable–without sounding dispicable ourselves. In doing so, we thus avoid revealing the intellectual emptiness at the core of such ranting.
7 khomotso // Jan 21, 2009 at 4:48 pm
It seems a little disingenuous to posit a poetic intelligence by adducing an example from an occasion where one is very likely to wax poetic. Perhaps you could quote a policy paper as an example of his inartful prose.
8 Gherald // Jan 21, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Mentioning nuclear power in a high-profile speech while trying to get off on the right foot regarding Tehran’s “civilian” ambitions seems like a bad idea.
Whether Obama has plans for nuclear I don’t know. But if he does it still made sense to omit mention, I think.
You must log in to post a comment.