“He was the explainer-in-chief without seeming too preachy. He was full of Southern aphorisms without being hokey. And, perhaps most importantly of all, Clinton was quite clearly having a very good time – and he let it show. He adlibbed. He played with the crowd. He smiled and laughed. And, yes, he went on a little too long. But, if you are a student of campaign politics – like we are – what you watched tonight was the work of someone with massive natural ability in the political arena.”
Andrew Sullivan acknowledged this encouraging piece of political commentary, written by Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza, for its praise of Clinton’s remarks at day two of the Democratic National Convention, and I’d like to second that acknowledgement. Clinton’s speech was great. So great, some say, that he might have just won the election for the Democrats (and even have overshadowed the long awaited appearance of President Obama at tonight’s final rally).
So why was Clinton’s speech so extravagantly and unarguably the best we’ve seen yet? Cillizza claims it’s because of our former president’s incomparable ability to explain. So much so, to say that it was “the work of someone with massive natural ability in the political arena.” So is that it? The best politicians are the ones who can dumb things down for the American public? Who assume the worst of our electorate and plan accordingly? It’s possible.
Ezra Klein, blogger and correspondent for the Washington Post tweeted of the event last night: “A longtime hallmark of Clinton’s speeches is believing that voters want to hear more about policy than they usually get to. And being right.”
So what does it really mean for the political elite to simplify policy for public audiences? Is it for the purpose of engaging MORE voters, or MORE policy? Is it both? Obviously, this strategy seems to have been effective, and presumably an extreme benefit to the Obama campaign. Especially if a political lesson/plug can avoid sounding patronizing for 45 whole minutes. (Sadly, I think that’s longer than the average American attention span).
Keeping up with every detail of a presidential election is apparently as time consuming as full time job – and can actually be one. So who’s to say we couldn’t use a cliff notes version of a political battle every once in a while and isn’t that what conventions are for anyway? Mobilizing voters and simplifying months of campaigning and platform formation down to a few days of speeches? I’m starting to see why Clinton needed that 45 minutes.
As college students preparing to vote for the first time in a presidential election, we have come to a theoretical crossroads. On the precipice of our first ever vote in a presidential election, and our own selfish ambitions, every one of us has a fundamental question to answer. How involved will you be?
Yesterday, the New York Times Well blog featured a post titled, “Organic Food vs. Conventional Food.” It was formatted as a question and answer explaining a Stanford study that proves no link between the nutrient content of organic food verses industrially produced foods. Now, if you know very little about nutrition, or the organic food movement, it would appear to be a provocative and well researched statement – it certainly sounds official to me. It sounded provocative until you realize that the issue lies in the far too belittled point that it’s not about nutrients at all, it’s about pesticides. Yes, they mentioned it, but barely. They even explain that pregnant women should stay away from them. My question is why that’s not the topic of this official-sounding Stanford study. Probably because that’s already been proven. Are we now supposed to ignore the fact that pesticides are harmful to our bodies just because conventionally grown foods aren’t any LESS nutrient-rich than organic foods? I hope not.
The point of this digression is not that I am frustrated with research being done about the health of our food, or the wellness of our bodies. I merely would like to point out that for a lot of readers, this blogger’s argument would appear to make a lot of sense, and probably turn some shoppers off from buying the more expensive organic label in their produce section. For the average person who doesn’t know how to ask the right questions, the idea of organic foods having health benefits just became a myth.
It’s comparable to how I feel when confronted with something about the economy. Well that feeling for me actually equates to a paralyzing fear that creeps up and extinguishes any fantasy of once being an informed citizen. To sum up, I know nothing. Shockingly little. And so, conversations of debt ceilings and bailouts and depressed economies involve a lot of head nodding on my part and a lot of explaining and mentoring on the other. For this reason, my knowledge and opinions of the economy are at the mercy of those whose whim inspires them to write about it. If you wrote an expose on the benefits of comparing the economic downturn to a puppy dog I would probably consider it high-brow academia. (But hopefully not.)
How do you reconcile political interest or, at least, a sense of political obligation with a want to accomplish your goals and create personal success even in the face of potential national success? For some it’s the inability to ask the right questions. For some, the struggle to compose a political identity.
My final point is this: How are we, the uninformed citizen, and all of us who will never be professors of political science, supposed to filter through the endless array of literature on a subject we probably don’t understand very well? If you’re not a seasoned politician is it possible to figure out what the right questions are and how to ask them? The most difficult part of preparing for an election, or just keeping up to date with pressing political news, is finding the time to do so. President Clinton, you used my time well.
