Regretfully, campaign speeches are narratives, stories of the future; even, I suspect, well suited to the Twilight Zone.
Idealism runs rampant in the language, and who among us would not cheer the plans and hopes spun out? Would either candidate for the top spot in the nation promise higher taxes, less employment, bigger government and fewer gains and aid given over to education and healthcare? It would seem so, however, when speaking of the other guy. It only proves to me that words have so much power. Add environment and tone of speech, an honest smile or two and every tale becomes believable because we want it just as much as those who promise to make it all come true.
I listened to John Kerry’s speech to UNITY, Journalists of Color last night. The man’s heart and mind are certainly in the right place. But words, my friend, the words must be taken out of pregnant pauses and resultant cheers. For what does this mean: “We want to bring America back together, instead of splitting it apart.” That’s good news, of course; he doesn’t want to split America apart. I strongly doubted that he did, but just as strongly doubt that President Bush does either, whether implied or not by Mr. Kerry. So that was, in my mind, a rather useless statement but nevertheless brought cheers because it sounds so damn good.
What I feel is one of the best ways to compare and judge the candidates is to read the plans they have presented on the issues, on their respective websites. Though naturally neither plan, even if opposing, would seriously be offensive, they would at least be comparable in their feasibility at least as far as we can guess, and in their relevance to us as individuals and as a nation.
And too, it’s there in semi-permanent form. Re-readable for clearer understanding, unlike words spoken in a speech to cheering crowds.
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology