|
Gifts for all occasions in the Galleria! Subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list. The "What is the Deal?" Deal-of-the-Week: Get a 4-star hotel for a 2-star price at Hotwire! October 3, 2004 What is the Deal with Substance versus Style? By Jan A. Larson There is little question that Americans are more enamored with style than substance. How else would Cameron Diaz get the chance to discuss politics on national television while I've never been offered a movie role? (I would like to think that my views on politics generally have substance, but I'll readily admit that style is not my strong suit.) We like "beautiful people" that look good, smile pretty and are eloquent speakers. When it comes to our politicians, looks may not be quite as important (although don't tell that to supporters of John Edwards) but the ability to speak forcefully and persuasively is a trait that all politicians prize. Whether you liked or disliked Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, there is no doubt that both were great communicators. The 2004 presidential campaign offers a stark contrast in the area of style. John Kerry is an accomplished speaker. Like other great orators, he can make any idea sound like a good idea. His words - whether they make sense or not - roll off his tongue with a lilt and timbre that can mesmerize an audience. President Bush, on the other hand, does not possess such abilities. The President often speaks haltingly which gives the impression that he is unsure of what he is about to say. Of course it could also be indicative that he is actually thinking before he speaks. He mispronounces words and sometimes uses words that send listeners scrambling for their dictionaries. The President's voice also does not have the qualities of other great speakers. In fact it can be grating at times. After watching the first presidential debate, I commented to my wife that Kerry had clearly been the winner. He was tanned, manicured and glib. The President appeared tired, disinterested and annoyed. In terms of how Americans judge winning and losing political debates, which is on style, Kerry won handily and the post-debate polls supported this. The problem with this is that debating is really not about looking good or sounding good. It is about presenting positions and arguments that stand up to logic and a test of reasonableness. In this regard, the debate was no contest and the polls, once again, bear this out. While a Gallup poll indicated that Kerry won the debate "performance" 53 to 37 percent, the poll also indicated that voters believe Bush would better handle the situation in Iraq by 54 to 43, Bush is more believable by 50 to 45 and, perhaps most importantly, Bush is viewed as tough enough for the job by a decisive 54 to 37 margin. If one examines the actual content of each candidate's performance, Kerry really did nothing to change the fact that his positions are inconsistent, that he is an internationalist that would subject decisions to defend America to a "global test" and that he just doesn't understand many of the realities in the world today. Kerry decries that the President did not build a sufficient coalition before going into Iraq, but then suggested that the U. S. should bypass the six-party talks with North Korea. In which situations would John Kerry build coalitions and in which would he not? Kerry actually suggested that the U. S. supply nuclear fuel to Iran to "test them" to see if they were interested in it for peaceful purposes. Say what? I can only imagine what Kerry might have said if the President had made such a suggestion. Kerry lamented that, "you don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty ..". Never mind that the treaty to which he referred, the Kyoto Treaty, if ratified by the United States, would have crippled the U. S. economy with virtually no effect on the emission of greenhouse gasses. The President understands that the real work of governing the United States isn't about sound bites or advocating "feel good" notions without regard for the consequences. John Kerry's performance in the debate was impressive in terms of style, but the substance of his performance doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I have no doubt that Kerry will perform masterfully in the final two debates as well. The real question is whether American voters will see that despite the eloquent verbiage, Kerry really says nothing. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
|||||||||||||
