The Power of Speeches

Hillary Clinton made a speech on Wednesday that illustrates the problem with and the power of speeches and underscores why accusing Obama of doing nothing more than making speeches misses the mark.

Speeches are powerful things.  I don't mean just the kind that motivate people to hope, or to motivate society to change.  

Speeches are 99% of all foreign policy.  Speeches demonstrate leadership and character, but they also signal policy directions.  In fact, it is the rare occurrence in which presidents are expected to take a call at 3am and make a decision on the spot.  Often the purpose of a 3am phone call is to alert the President of an oncoming crisis. The apparatus of government is often already in motion to deal with a problem that will likely play out over days if not weeks.

But I digress.  What is the power of speeches.  Currently a large majority of Muslim countries hate the United States.  Strongly correlated with this hatred is a belief that the United States is actively trying to weaken and divide Islam.  Other issues like oil and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are near the surface, but the perception that the US is trying to weaken and divide Islam is pervasive among Muslim publics.

Buttressing these pervasive attitudes are perceptions guided by speeches made by President Bush over the last six years.  In focus groups across the Middle East, a perception is vocalized that the US is actively trying to undermine Islam.  When probed about his attitude the first thing mentioned is not oil or Israel, but President Bush's September 2001 speech in which he claimed "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile".

By referring to the War on Terror as a "Crusade" it brought to mind the crusades of the Middle Ages, in which Christian warriors flocked to the Middle East to make war.  You might say that Muslims have a unique perspective on that unfortunate period of history.

At the time, Europeans and Middle Eastern Scholars cringed, and rightly so, because of the images it evoked.  Other speeches made by the Bush administration, some of which have referred to Islamo-fascists, have bolstered this view, and given Muslims the perception that the US is less interested in democracy than in converting them to Christianity.

But how do these speeches reflect on the candidates willingness to act at 3am?  Personally, I found President Bush's 8:45 am actions 9/11 to be pretty reflective of his speeches.  Pertualant, controlling and indecisive in the face of danger.  His primary concern was to attack an enemy that had not attacked the US.

McCain's speeches have not helped his case either.  Which McCain will answer the phone at 3 am? Will it be the McCain that does nothing but talk about fear and terrorism?  Will it be the McCain that glibly jokes about bombing Iran?  Though such speeches play well to conservative audiences, he comes off as irresponsible to a larger audience; a politician who doesn't seriously consider the consequences of his actions.  Killing people is a serious business in real life, not something for a Presidential candidate to joke about, if he may be called upon to make real life and death judgment on a phone call at 3 am--and unduly influenced by the fact that he went to bed listening to the Beach Boys.  Furthermore, while being endorsed by Bush, McCain made no speech, instead deferring to the statements Bush had already made.  That doesn't sound much like a Maverick to me.  It sounds like  a follower, not a leader.

As for Hillary her speeches have made me wonder which Hillary will answer the phone at 3 am.  Where Obama has appeared fairly even and moderate--very much on message--despite the relentless attacks by the Clinton campaign, Hillary herself is all over the place.

Maybe the very human Hillary, evident during the New Hampshire primary or during the Austin debate, will answer the phone. Will it be the angry Hillary, ranting about campaign mailers released days or even weeks before she decides to get angry about them.  Or will it be the mocking Hillary, dismissing Obama's message of hope and change (even as she cynically embraces it)?  Maybe it will be the Hillary that spoon feeds talking points to the Republican party.

Maybe, just maybe, it will be the Hillary that says she had to think long and hard about her decision to vote in favor of the authorization to use force in Iraq, even though she failed to read the National Intelligence Estimate.  I honestly have no idea which Hillary will answer the phone.  That concerns me.

Obama, however, has made positive speeches about hope and change.  Feelgood yes, but the message laden in his speeches are the necessity to heal partisan breeches and motivate all parties to act for the common good.  Other less popular historical figures like JFK, MLK and FDR made similar speeches.  But Obama has also made speeches about policies that we needed to here, and demonstrated good judgment.

Obama opposed the war in Iraq even when it was not politically popular and Bush had favorabiliy ratings that were still very high.  Though it was not popular at the time, his speech was a minority in the political discourse.  Most democrats, Hillary included, took the safer political route and approved the military option.  Will she show a similar lack of judgment and courage when she gets that phone call at 3 am?

Obama has also made speeches about Cuba and Climate change, in front of audiences where his words showed courage and judgment.  US Cuba policy has not worked for 40 years and yet, both McCain and Clinton support policies that are fundamentally similar to that of Bush.  Clinton calls such positions naive, I say it demonstrates character, judgment and courage.

By contrast, both McCain and Clinton have made speeches and endorsed actions that demonstrate a fundamental lack of judgment.  As President, what kind of speeches will she make then?  Character and judgment, emerge when politicians make speeches.  From my perspective, Clinton and McCain are lacking in this department.

I want a Commander-in-Chief that demonstrates good judgment, not one that has 35 years of experience that will encourage them to make the wrong choices.  I want a Commander in Chief like JFK or Lincoln.  They lacked experience too but showed good judgment when it really mattered.