As noted earlier, today has been an odd day. I spent hours in a stuffy room, listening to the stories of my fellow citizens, as the attorneys in a criminal case that I can’t yet discuss tried to choose their ideal jury. As a result, I had no access to the internet or cable tv and missed seeing Obama’s speech live. I’ve since read it, and watched long sections of it here. But I haven’t yet seen what others have been saying on the subject. I might, later tonight, begin canvassing the interweb for reactions. For the moment, though, I thought I’d share a very few unfiltered thoughts of my own.
Again, my overall impression is that it was a great speech: particularly in its details if not always in its delivery. My guess is that other observers — like I said, I’ll check later — many of whom are smarter and better qualified for the task than I, have already taken this document apart piece by piece, singing its praises and cataloging its deficiencies. So, I’m not going to do that. Instead, I’ll say that I think the speech was remarkable as a piece of political rhetoric, powerful ideas woven from thoughtful words, a compelling answer to challenges about Obama’s fitness to lead the nation.
And in the end, that’s why I liked the speech so much. Obama didn’t duck any big questions. And beyond an unfortunate tendency to buy into myths about American exceptionalism — which, given his biography, likely resonate for him — he relied on a reasonably nuanced and unvarnished narrative of the nation’s history. More than that, though, I appreciate the fact that he chose to give a speech like this at all, to appear as an adult talking to adults. I may be guilty of romanticizing the past, but it seems to me that this sort of thing used to happen more often and to great effect.
The most obvious historical parallel is with John F. Kennedy’s decision to take to the airwaves to rebut charges that his religion disqualified him from the presidency. But Kennedy often delivered speeches in moments of crisis. Including, after he was elected, an inaugural address, at the height of the Cold War, that forced Americans to consider their responsibilities as citizens. In addition to his stirring War Message and his masterful First Inaugural, FDR also made a practice of chatting with the nation regularly, responding to his critics, reassuring a skittish polity, and sharing his ideas with the listening public. And Lincoln, three-quarters of a century before that, when faced with controversy, used to speak out instead of spinning: his First and Second Inaugurals, the Cooper Union and Gettysburg Addresses, among many others. These are just a few cases from the past when leaders met and made history with their words. Was Obama’s speech the equal of any of the aforementioned. Probably not.
It also wasn’t as good as many of the greatest speeches about the relationship between white and black people in this country: from Frederick Douglass’s thoughts on the Fourth of July to W.E.B. DuBois’s address at Harper’s Ferry to MLK’s dream to Malcolm X’s dire warning to LBJ’s stirring plea to Congress to do the right thing.
But making it onto a top-ten list of great speeches of one kind or another wasn’t Obama’s goal today. At least I don’t think it was. And this speech, it seemed to me, also wasn’t about style or soaring applause lines. The point for Obama today was to answer hard questions directly, to use language and ideas to persuade an audience to ponder a very difficult subject along with him. I believe that he did that. In addition, as I noted earlier tonight, I hope Obama will begin to usher in a new era in which such a practice — delivering a major speech on the issue of the day — becomes more common, in which our leaders rely on rhetoric and critical thinking when they speak to us. In short, I hope that Obama makes a habit of this kind of thing. If he does, perhaps we can all remember that well-chosen words and skillfully crafted ideas really do matter, that they can be, sometimes at least, the mainspring of our history.
[Update: Here’s exactly the sort of thoughtful reading of the content of the Obama speech that I don’t offer. Via DeJon at hungryhungryhippoes, Urbino’s group blog. Go for the Urbino; stay for the thoughtful discussions between friends who disagree.]

8 comments
March 18, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Ben Alpers
But making it onto a top-ten list of great speeches of one kind or another wasn’t the point for Obama today…The point for Obama today was to answer hard questions directly, to use language and ideas to persuade an audience to ponder a very difficult subject along with him. I believe that he did that.
I agree entirely that he did that. And exceedingly well. As something of an Obama skeptic, I was genuinely impressed by this speech (though like a number of commentators on the other thread I felt that both his line about Israel and his knee-jerk American exceptionalism rang a bit false).
But the problem for Obama is that the point of this speech was principally not to answer hard questions directly, but to move his campaign beyond a political crisis. There were some hard questions at the heart of that crisis, and Obama answered them well. But like most political crises in our culture, much of this crisis consists not of “hard questions” but of bullshit (in the philosophical sense of the term).
To the extent that this crisis is bullshit, the speech largely doesn’t matter. The bullshitters will greet the speech with vague notions that, somehow, this speech isn’t “enough” for some unspecified group of other people (and of course, trivially, there are groups for which it will of course not be enough: e.g. hardcore racists, Republican activists, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and so forth). See, for example, Joan Walsh’s piece in Salon.com (I’d link, but I don’t want to wait for moderation): “Was Obama’s Speech Enough?” And her answer, after saying a lot of nice things about this speech, is essentially “no”…though there’s no content whatsoever to this answer. It’s just handwaving and bullshit.
At least from afar, this crisis seems much smaller than it’s been spun. Obama overwhelmingly has the delegate math in his favor. There’s just no way Clinton wins this. To the extent that there’s been a suggestion that the nomination hangs in the balance, I don’t see it. On the other hand, Obama could emerge from this nomination fight as a profoundly damaged candidate. And this crisis was about that. Like I’ve already said, I think he’s handled it exceedingly well.
But whether or not the bullshit aspect of this crisis continues is, in a sense, out of Obama’s control.
March 18, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Vance Maverick
How would you historians compare this bullshit and the compulsive, manically inconsistent rightwing response to Obama to the anger FDR inspired?
March 18, 2008 at 10:54 pm
ari
Ask the guy who really knows. (That’s Eric, by the way.)
March 18, 2008 at 11:09 pm
KRK
Regarding whether Obama will make a habit of delivering major speeches on the issue(s) of the day, he’s scheduled to give a speech Thursday on “Iraq and the Economy” in Charleston, WV. (According to Al Giordano at The Field there was also supposed to be a speech Wednesday on Iraq and national security in Fayetteville, NC, but that doesn’t show up on the official campaign schedule.)
Addressing Iraq and the economy so soon after today’s speech may satisfy some who said today “Ho, hum, what’s the big deal about race? Obama isn’t address problems that really matter.” But I suspect those folks aren’t looking to be satisfied by anything that Obama does. I do worry that it might be too much oratory in a single week. Maybe the goal is just to get these words and ideas out there and let them percolate while he does more ground-level stumping in the weeks ahead.
March 18, 2008 at 11:45 pm
jlh
The important difference between JFK’s speech before the Protestant ministers and Obama’s speech in Philadelphia was that JFK sought only to reassure voters without challenging their prejudice while Obama wishes to engage Americans in a discussion about the nature of prejudice.
Obviously, he must address this issue if anything else he says will be heard. But instead of trying to wish it away or, worse, attempt to disown his own heritage, he has attacked the issue head-on.
Jodi Kantor of the New York Times starts her column on the speech with this:
“Since he was very young, Senator Barack Obama has been something of a mediator of racial concerns, shuttling between black and white worlds and trying to translate the concerns of one to the other.
“He did it in his family. He did it at Harvard Law School. And on Tuesday morning, he assumed that role nationally, trying to allay voters’ concerns about statements by his pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright, and staking his presidential candidacy on his ability to explain black grievances to white people and white resentment to black people.”
Obama really does possess a unique perspective which has given him an equally unique opportunity.
March 19, 2008 at 1:23 am
Green Tee Readings » links for 2008-03-19
[…] “This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years.” « … Like this article, I hope Obama’s speech gets the idea across that the sound bite is a pretty useless mechanism for transmitting ideas. (tags: Obama reaction) […]
March 19, 2008 at 4:07 am
Obama’s Speech on Race. My contribution to the dialogue. « blueollie
[…] More reaction: Ari at the Edge of the American West. […]
March 19, 2008 at 10:12 am
urbino
Thanks for the love, Ari.
As for Obama’s speech, I think it may actually hold up pretty well, historically. Obviously, much depends on what happens with the rest of his campaign and career, but it’s got the potential.
The historic parallel I first thought of was King’s Riverside speech on Vietnam.