More than just words

Editorial

Barack Obama's monumental speech on race last week – and its aftermath – says much about America, its politics and our world. For the purposes of Jewish voters (and non-voters, for that matter) who remain anxious about Obama's lack of foreign policy experience and demonstrated commitment to Israel, there was an unequivocal statement of common sense.

Condemning the remarks of the minister of the church Obama attends, the senator and presidential candidate tried to put behind him the controversy of his controversial clergyman, in the process rejecting the idea that it is America's alliance with Israel that brought about 9-11, among other things.

"They expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country," Obama said of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's inflammatory words. "A view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

What is among the most astounding aspects of Obama's speech is the number of people who appear to have watched the entire 37 minutes of it on Youtube or some other online source.

As a work of oratory it was, like many of Obama's pronouncements, captivating and inspiring. In content, it contained a brilliantly succinct explanation for the impact of discrimination on the economic opportunity of African-Americans, among many other well-crafted positions. But, again, these are just words.

Just words. This is the aspersion that Hillary Clinton's camp has thrown at Obama, arguing that the ability to make speeches does not equip one to be the president of the United States. True enough. But a president who can articulate the vision of the country, inspire greatness or unify a deeply divided people should not be dismissed as a font of "just words."

But the phenomenon of the speech, which, by the way, is titled "A More Perfect Union," is notable in many ways beyond both form and content.

Of everything else the speech indicates, perhaps the most illuminating is that voters, given the chance, will participate in the civic dialogue in spurts longer than 10-second soundbites. This is even more significant than it might appear on the surface. Since the advent of television, political discourse in the United States, and no less so in Canada, has been reduced to shameful levels of lowest common denominators and memorable zingers. Thanks to Youtube, which did not even exist during the last presidential election, the public can access audiovisuals of almost anything, for better and for worse.

The idea that concerned citizens will, when given the opportunity, educate themselves in depth on issues of concern, like race relations, is a revelation, it seems. And it improves the possibility that politicians will be able to actually be leaders, to lead public opinion, rather than follow it. For the past several decades, due to TV and, increasingly, to public opinion surveys, candidates have viewed the voting public not as a group of people prepared to intelligently consider options, but as blocs with inflexible opinions that must be managed, rather than challenged. The difference is profound.

This is significant for areas other than elective politics. Anyone with a concern for issues, who believes that free and fair discourse is an ideal to which we as a civilization must aspire, should be awakened by this development.

Likely to be among the issues benefiting from a deeper discussion is the Middle East situation. Like everything else, the complex conflict between Israel and its neighbors has been dumbed down. This has given a particular advantage to Israel's enemies. Slogans play well in short-attention-span media. Context and nuance do not. So "End the occupation now" has resonance. Detailed explanations of why Israel is forced to militarily occupy areas where the Palestinian Authority has refused to prevent the proliferation of terrorism, and the historical legacy of decades-long total rejection of any Jewish presence in the region does not have the same resonance.

Will the Youtube phenomenon change the way we discuss, debate and consider complex topics? Not everyone is as articulate as Obama. Listening to an average speaker prattle on for 37 minutes will not appeal as much as the cadences and beautiful turns of phrase spun by Obama. But the very idea that the age of the almighty soundbite could be coming to an end is cause for rejoicing.

^TOP