Friday, May 26, 2006

Sometimes you like the pie

Is it just me, or do the world leaders these days just not have any charisma? I don't just mean charm, but that commanding ability to walk into a room and demand its attention. Bill Clinton, though steeped in "boyish good looks", had it to a point. But lately I can barely think of anybody.

The Late Show (i.e. "Letterman") has been running an hilarious semi-regular segment entitled "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches", poking fun at Dubya. Sure, when JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" and FDR's "the only thing to fear is fear itself" speeches are followed up by Dubya mumbling "sometimes you like the pie, ya know, but you don't like, ya know, the slices in the pie!" it's pretty much shooting fish in a barrel, but it still makes a good point.

George W. Bush, Tony Blair, even our esteemed John Howard - none of them give particularly great or inspiring speeches. Even the guys we're s'posed to hate seem to command more attention - just think of the wall-rattlers that Saddam has directed at the prosecution in the last couple of months, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's angered barbs towards Israel. Of course, it's probably easier to give great speeches and inspire the already angry masses - it's well known that Hitler was one of the greatest orators - but it's no exclusive club.

JFK and FDR are two of the greatest examples, but how about Martin Luther King? Even our own Paul Keating - with the help of his wordsmith Don Watson, of course - had his day.

Do these people exist anymore? Maybe they do, but the public just don't care. Certainly the closest we've got to a leader-of-the-masses type we've got in Australia is AWU national secretary Bill Shorten, yet despite his recent media ubiquiouty (c/o Beaconsfield), he barely registered a blip on the latest ALP leadership polls.

The trend has not gone unnoticed. Joe Klein (best known as the originally-anonymous author of Primary Colors) has written a book that makes more than fleeting reference to the problem, and an excerpt has been published in Time.

Listen to Kennedy's Indianapolis speech and there is a quality of respect for the audience that simply is not present in modern American politics. It isn't merely that he quotes Aeschylus to the destitute and uneducated, although that is remarkable enough. Kennedy's respect for the crowd is not only innate and scrupulous, it is also structural, born of technological innocence: he doesn't know who they are--not scientifically, the way post-modern politicians do.


Respect. It's something barely tangible, yet everybody knows when they command it. And it's something, as Klein says, that barely seems to rate on the political radar these days. It's a shame.

9 comments:

preach said...

the right leaders come out of the right situations

i forgot who said it, but it kinda makes sense. i mean, you have these war time presidents who would'nt completely suit these times.

considering this is unofficial 'peace time', and trust me i use that term lightly, we supposedly 'need' these unmotivational, unremarkable people to convince us that everything is 'normal'.

what'im really trying to say is that i love quotation marks. love them love them love them

preach said...

and holy shit, i use incorrect grammar for 'wouldn't'

don't think less of me brad, however hard that may be

Anonymous said...

i also, love... "quotation marks", they work well... most of the time.

i see what you're saying, that it seems that the whole personal/charisma gaining votes have seemed to have disappeared! i've noticed that people that i've spoken to older than me, seem to base their opinion not on the leader itself, but the leader *of* a particular party that has done 'well' in the past. i don't see this as a negative however.
as don't you think it better that people have a more OBJECTIVE opinion on issues, rather than being influenced by personality/charismatic differences?

Anonymous said...

i also, love... "quotation marks", they work well... most of the time.

i see what you're saying, that it seems that the whole personal/charisma gaining votes have seemed to have disappeared! i've noticed that people that i've spoken to older than me, seem to base their opinion not on the leader itself, but the leader *of* a particular party that has done 'well' in the past. i don't see this as a negative however.
as don't you think it better that people have a more OBJECTIVE opinion on issues, rather than being influenced by personality/charismatic differences?

pandaobscura said...

I totally agree with you on the objectivity thing, but I guess there's also a sense of romance in thinking that people might also be *led* by great *leaders*.

In an ideal world, our leaders would be both informed *and* charismatic. But I guess we're far from an ideal world.

Anonymous said...

I have just finished reading "Speeches that changed the world... The stories and transcripts of the moments that made history" - a collection of the most influential speeches ever made.

An excellent book that left me speechless. I totally recommend this to anyone interested in influential and inspiring speeches.

ISBN 1 74045 663 7

Anonymous said...

I have just finished reading "Speeches that changed the world... The stories and transcripts of the moments that made history" - a collection of the most influential speeches ever made.

An excellent book that left me speechless. I totally recommend this to anyone interested in influential and inspiring speeches.

ISBN 1 74045 663 7

Anonymous said...

Super color scheme, I like it! Keep up the good work. Thanks for sharing this wonderful site with us.
»

Anonymous said...

I find some information here.