You will have noticed, dear reader, that elections are in progress -- if such it may be called -- in many of the English-speaking Western democracies. Scotland, New Zealand, parts of Canada and, yes, the Excited States of America are being subjected to an onslaught of political speech-making.
Politicians of all stripes get up on their hind legs and flap their gums in an effort to convince the electorate to turn out in great numbers to vote for them. Yet, with the exception of last week's referendum in Scotland, voters are staying away from the polls in droves. Apathy reigns. In one small Ontario municipality, a newspaper poll suggested that voters prefer "Nobody" to the incumbent mayor or any of the challengers.
Why is this? Why do so few voters nowadays seem to care about who rules them or what policies their governments pursue? The answer, in Walt's humble opinion
[!!! Ed.] is that no-one who speaks from a public platform is willing or able to deliver a truly inspirational stump speech -- the kind that gets people roused up, cheering spontaneously, throwing their hats in the air, and rushing into the streets to demonstrate, or at least vote.
I have to go back a half-century to recall the last time I heard a politician give such a speech. It was in 1964, in a state far away. The major issue dividing the USA at the time was "civil rights". Political correctness was in its infancy, then, and you had to be mighty careful about how you stated your views on the question, or on the group of people the great civil rights revolution was supposed to benefit.
Southern politicians had to learn a variant of the N-word to refer to folks who were later to be called "black", and, still later "African-American". But at least there were still some who had the courage to stand up and oppose forced integration, affirmative action, and all the other brilliant ideas which the Eastern eggheads assured us would result in equality for all Americans. This will all end badly, the "antis" said, because people are
not all the same, and you can't legislate character and attitude. For saying so, those politicians were called "racists", "rabble-rousers" and "demagogues".
They had committed the grievous sin of standing up for what they believed, and shouting it from the rooftops or the courthouse steps. That was because they were white. It's OK, even today, to be a "demagogue" but only if you're black. A "demagogue", the dictionary tells us, is "a person, especially a political leader, who wins people's support by exciting their emotions". Like this gentleman.
Now that's what Walt calls demagoguery! You don't hear that kind of speechifying nowadays, at least not from white men. Jesse Jackson can still get a crowd to rise up. So can "Rev." Al Sharpton. Barack Hussein Obama would like to do it, but suffers by comparison, perhaps because he's torn between trying to sound like a (white) university professor and a "real black" leader.
Being an effective speaker -- like King, Jackson and Sharpton -- doesn't mean, though, that you have to be black. Nor does it mean you have to believe sincerely in what you're saying. (Hello, Reverend Sharpton!) Nor does it mean your ideas have to be sound. Your ideas can be crazy or downright evil. (Wie gehts, Adolf Hitler!) But you have to be able to express them clearly and forcefully. You have to be able to get the crowd with you, not just nodding their heads and applauding politely, but frothing at the mouth and champing at the bit to go out there and do what must be done...or at least vote.
Where are the orators of yesteryear? At the moment, Walt's favourite conservative politician is Dr. Ron Paul. (Yes, I know he's really a libertarian -- even better!) I've heard him speak. He speaks common sense. He speaks the truth. And he believes most sincerely in what he's saying. But, sadly, the passion isn't there.
In defence of Dr. Paul and all the other politicians and leader wannabes of our day, it must be said that the means of public communication has changed the style of public communication. The days when people would turn out in their 1000s to hear a speech by a politician are long gone. If there's a celebrity factor in play, as used to be the case with the Prez, you might still see a sizable crowd, but inevitably the speaker doesn't play to the audience, but to the video cameras.
A live speech to a large crowd is a hot medium. But, as Marshall McLuhan said, television is a cool medium. TV watchers don't want to be shouted at in their own living rooms. So people "making a speech" on TV adjust their styles, reading from the autocue -- no-one speaks off the cuff any more -- in the quiet, gentle voice of sweet reason. Histrionics and demagoguery are out. Being cool is in.
But how do people respond? Tepidly or not at all! People don't stand up in their living rooms and cheer! They don't even applaud. If the speaker makes a good point, without passion, the hearer thinks -- not "says", but "thinks" -- yes, that's a good point, I'll keep it in mind. They don't get up off the couch to go and vote or do anything else. That explains the declining turn-outs on election days and the general disinterest in politics and politicians.
Would an old-style politician who could deliver, sincerely and passionately, a barn-burner of a speech -- without notes -- ignite the fire in our bellies and under our asses? Walt doesn't know, but would like to see someone try.
This happened yesterday. Even as the Rev prated in front of the Lincoln Memorial about how whites just love putting their knees on black throats, a reader e-mailed me to complain about my statement, yesterday, of the fact that both ex-President Obama and Veep-wannabe Kamala Harris were raised by their mothers with little or no help from their absent fathers.
